Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 661 of 2022
Revisionist :- Pankaj Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and have gone through the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Jaunpur, in Case No. 1524 of 2020 (Smt. Asmita Versus Pankaj Tiwari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Sujanganj, District- Jaunpur, whereby the court below has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application.Further order dated 29.11.2021 passed in Misc. Case No. 1476 of 2021 (Pankaj Vs. Asmita) has also been challenged.
By judgment and order dated 18.3.2021 the learned Court below has directed the revisionist-opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to opposite party-applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against which the revisionist preferred application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide order dated 29.11.2021.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that admittedly the revisionist is husband of opposite party no.2. The learned court below has wrongly held that revisionist is a wholesale seller of drugs and surgical equipments and has income of Rs. Fifteen Lacks per month whereas he is a student of D-Pharma from SHEAT College of Pharmacy Varanasi. It is further submitted that court below has ex-parte awarded the maintenance allowance. The order impugned is totally illegal which deserves to be quashed by this Court. The amount of interim maintenance as awarded to the opposite party i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month is, too, excessive and the revisionist is unable to bear expenses, therefore, looking to the fact and circumstances of the case the amount of maintenance allowance may be reduced.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the revisionist, who is an able bodied person. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife.
The Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702 has observed as under:-
"It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right".
In view of above, present criminal application is disposed of finally and order dated 18.3.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Jaunpur, is modified to the extent that instead of Rs.15,000/- per month from date of the application, the revisionist shall pay maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of application till the date of order. However, the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.15,000/- per month as awarded by the trial court vide order dated 18.3.2021 shall also be paid to opposite party no.2 regularly by the revisionist.
The revisionist shall pay amount of arrears of maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application till the date of order at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and other dues till date in four equal installments within four consecutive months starting from 1st of June, 2022.
Order Date :- 5.5.2022
S.Verma
