Allahabad High Court
Mool Chand vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1061 of 2021
Revisionist :- Mool Chand
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri Narayan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed by the husband being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Case No.61 of 2019 (Smt. Brijesh Devi vs. Mool Chand) in an application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur from the date of making an application seeking such maintenance.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that his marriage with the respondent- Brijesh Devi had taken place on 18.06.1974. It is submitted that their marriage is about 46 years old. It is submitted that since 2018, Brijesh Devi on her own volition, started living separately levelling allegations of revisionist being in illicit relationship with some other women. It is submitted that in fact actual story is different. Brijesh Devi use to harass their daughter-in-law- Reena and when this fact was brought to the knowledge of the present revisionist, he had scolded his wife which prompted her to leave the home and levy such wild and baseless allegation of illicit liaison.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a retired police personnel. He is getting pension to the tune of Rs.23,000/- and court has directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the date of the application but has not directed to adjust the amount of interim maintenance which revisionist was already paying @ Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 10.05.2019. In view of such submissions, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside as revisionist is always willing and ready to keep his wife.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and though as per office report dated 15.06.2021, notices have been served upon opposite party no.2, but nobody is appearing for opposite party no.2, matter perused, arguments taken into consideration.
Learned court below has decided and which is an admitted position even on the part of revisionist that respondent no.2 is a duly married wife of the revisionist. As issue no.2, learned Family Court has decided that she is unable to earn her livelihood looking to her background and the age. Issue no.3 was framed to the affect as to whether revisionist despite having sufficient means was neglecting the up keep and maintenance of his wife and issue no.4 was that what amount of maintenance should be awarded in favour of the wife taking into consideration personal, social and economic status of the revisionist vis-a-vis the opposite party no.2. Issue no.5 was in regard to the date from which maintenance amount is to be granted.
Taking all these aspects into consideration, namely age of the opposite party no.2, which has come on record as 58 years and that of the revisionist, which has come on record as 60 years, and decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 arising out of SLP Criminal No.9503 of 2018 (Rajnesh vs. Neha & Others), 2021 (2) SCC 324 decided on 04.11.2020, it has been held that opposite party no.2 is entitled to receive maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
Learned counsel for the revisionist does not dispute the amount of maintenance but disputes the date from which it has been awarded and submits that this date be modified to the date of the order but has not been able to bring on record any judgment in support of his contention or to counter the ratio of the judgment laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra).
In view of such fact, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order which has taken into consideration income and dependency of the revisionist and has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- in favour of his wife. This revision deserves to fail and is dismissed, however, it is observed that any amount paid by the revisionist as an interim maintenance shall be adjusted from the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below.
In view of the aforesaid, revision fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2021
Ravi/-
