Allahabad High Court
Vineet Sehgal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 23 April, 2012
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6069 of 2006
Petitioner :- Vineet Sehgal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Rishi Chadha
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Suman Jaiswal
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anand Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 as well as learned AGA appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2.
This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 7.10.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 484 of 2003, Sapna Sehgal Vs. Vineet Sehgal under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application for maintenance in respect of wife Smt. Sapna Sehgal was rejected but was allowed in respect of Aryaman-minor son of opposite party no. 3. It was directed by the Family Court that Aryaman shall be entitled to Rs. 6000/- per month as maintenance allowance. ¾ of the amount shall be paid by his father-revisionist and 1/4th of the amount shall be born by his mother-opposite party no. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the father- Vineet Sehgal has come before this Court by means of this revision.
The facts are that opposite party no. 3- Smt. Sapna Sehgal filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist claiming maintenance for herself and her minor son- Aryaman with the allegations that they were married on 2.10.2000 and Aryaman was born on 16.9.2001. The relations between the spouses were not cordial, she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband and on 11.6.2001, she was turned out of matrimonial home and she was living with her father. She claimed a sum of Rs. 11000/- per month as maintenance allowance for herself and her minor son.
The revisionist filed his written statement before the Family Court denying the allegations made in the application and contested the case. Parties led evidence and ultimately the claim of opposite party no. 3 was declined in respect of herself but the child was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that considering the income of the revisionist, the amount of maintenance awarded to the child is highly excessive. This submission is hotly contested by learned counsel for opposite party no. 3. The revisionist was an Deputy Commandant in BSF and according to the finding recorded by the family court, he was, at the relevant time, was earning more than Rs. 25000/- per month. Opposite party no. 3- Smt. Sapna Sahgal is also employed as a teacher and after deductions, she was getting more than Rs.. 8000/- per month.
Considering the income of the opposite party no. 3, learned trial court did not award any maintenance allowance to opposite party no. 3 for herself. Opposite party no. 3 has not challenged the said finding by filing any revision. This aspect of the case need not detain us any further.
As far as the child- Aryaman is concerned, his age was about five years when the case was decided by the family court and now his age must be about 11 years. Since both his parents are earning members, both of them are responsible to contribute towards his maintenance. Both the parties are persons of status and likewise the child is also entitled to have education and other facilities of the same standard. The amount awarded by family court i.e. 6000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive by any standard, if we keep in mind the income of his parents. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly apportioned the liability of the father and mother in the ratio 3 : 1, the father has to contribute Rs. 4500/- and the mother has to contribute Rs. 1500/- per month for the maintenance of their child.
Considering all the facts and circumstances, I find that the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist invited the attention of the Court towards the order dated 3.7.2010 wherein certain adverse observations were made by the court against the conduct of the revisionist. These observations were made by the court as at that stage the court was trying to bring about a compromise between the parties and the court felt that satisfactory progress was not being made but now the case is coming to an end and it appears that parties are unable to bridge their differences and the observations made by this Court in order dated 3.7.2010 are neither necessary nor required for the disposal of this revision. The observations made in the order dated 3.7.2010 are hereby recalled.
During pendency of the revision, the revisionist has paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to opposite party no. 3 towards the maintenance of the minor child- Aryaman before this Court. The said amount shall be adjusted in execution proceeding.
With these observations, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.4.2012
KU
