Allahabad High Court
Yogendra Singh @ Rajoo vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3544 of 2022
Applicant :- Yogendra Singh @ Rajoo
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishnu Murti Tripathi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 25.11.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah in Case No.471 of 2018 (Shashi Prabha Vs. Yogendra Singh @ Rajoo), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, whereby the application for interim maintenance filed by Opposite Party No.2 and her minor daughter i.e. Opposite Party No.3 has been allowed and applicant has been directed to pay @ Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance in favour of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
Perused the record.
Record shows that marriage of Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized with applicant on 12.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Gauri was born on 01.12.2015. However, it appears that some marital discord took place in between applicant and his wife on account of which, the relationship between applicant and Opposite Party No.2 became strained. However, for reason best known to applicant, Opposite Party No.2 alongwith her minor daughter is alleged to have been ousted from her marital home in March 2017 and since then, she alongwith her minor daughter is residing separately at her parental home.
Faced with despair and destitution, Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 filed an application dated 30.07.2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This application came to be registered as Case No.471 of 2018 (Shashi Prabha Vs. Yogendra Singh @ Rajoo), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah. Subsequently, applicant appeared in aforementioned case and filed his objection dated 19.01.2019 denying the allegations made in application dated 30.07.2018. Opposite Party No.2 filed her rejoinder dated 22.09.2019 to the objections filed by applicant.
Subsequently, Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 filed an application dated 30.10.2019 claiming interim maintenance @Rs.20,000/- from applicant. Aforesaid application was contested by applicant and he filed his objection dated 04.04.2019 to the same. Ultimately court below by means of impugned order dated 25.11.2021 allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
Thus, feeling aggrieved by above, applicant, who is the husband of Opposite Party No.2 and father of Opposite Party No.3 has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. Amount awarded by court below is highly excessive and harsh. Court below has failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case. No finding has been recorded by court below, as to whether the complainant/Opposite Party No.2 is able to maintain herself, or not, as is required in terms of Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C. No finding with regard to the income of applicant has been recorded by court below either Opposite Party No.2 is a lady of sufficient means and therefore able to maintain herself and her daughter. As such order impugned in the present application is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. submits that it is an undisputed fact that marriage of Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized with applicant on 12.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Gauri i.e. Opposite Party No.3 was born on 01.12.2015. It is thus apparent that complainant/Opposite Party No.2 is legally wedded wife of applicant. Learned A.G.A. for State then submits that it is also an undisputed fact that Opposite Party No.2 alongwith her minor daughter i.e. Opposite Party No.3 is residing separately at her parental home since March 2017. However, there is nothing on record to show that applicant has maintained his wife and minor daughter. As such, applicant has failed to discharge his moral and legal obligation. Learned A.G.A. further contends that it is also an undisputed fact that applicant is working as Teacher in Government Primary School and alongwith his objection before court below, no document was filed by applicant before court below nor even before this Court related to his income/salary. Therefore, court below has rightly drawn an adverse inference against applicant.
In view of above, learned A.G.A. for State submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. As such, present application is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that submissions urged by learned A.G.A. for State are established from the record. Nothing has been brought on record to establish the income of Opposite Party No.2. Apart from above, the arrangement made by court below is interim in nature. Parties will have adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case/defence. Admittedly, the maintenance awarded by court below is payable to the wife and minor daughter of applicant. The amount awarded by court below cannot be said to be excessive. It is well settled by now that maintenance awarded in favour of wife and minor chindlren must commensurate with the status of the husband/father. Furthermore, the issue as to whether, maintenance is payable from the date of application or from the date of order, now settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324.
In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned in present application. The present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022
Zafar
