Allahabad High Court
Shyam Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Azhar Idrisi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment Reserved on 16.01.2023
Judgment Delivered on 28.04.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4472 of 2022
Revisionist :- Shyam Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar,Shiv Vilas Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Judgment reserved.
2. As per office report dated 02.01.2023/13.01.2023, notice issued by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 has been served upon opposite party no. 2 but no one has appeared on his behalf. Therefore, the Court is proceeding to decide the case on merits.
3. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Misc. Case 377 of 2017 (Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Shyam Lal), under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. whereby the family Court enhanced maintenance amount from Rs.1500/- per month to Rs. 3000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of application.
4. The brief facts of the present revision are that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 Smt. Shanti Devi were married 40 years back according to Hindu rites and rituals. From this wedlock, four daughters born. All the daughters were living with the revisionist and now leading a happy married life. But the opposite party no. 2 did not even attended the marriages of her daughters. The opposite party no. 2 left her matrimonial home and went to reside with her brother and refused to come back despite several efforts. All the efforts for conciliation between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 failed. She also did not try to meet her daughters even in their marriage. The opposite party no. 2 with malicious intention, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, which was registered as Case No. 239 of 2011 (Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Shyam Lal). The revisionist filed objection in that case. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.03.2011 allowed the maintenance application and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.1500/- per month on 10th day of every month to the applicant wife. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 also filed an application under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit averring therein that the revisionist is not complying the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. She also stated that she is an old lady, aged about 65 years, and she is suffering from illness. Her treatment is going on in Medisty Hospital, Bareilly and she has no money for her treatment and maintenance. The revisionist opposite party in that petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is not paying maintenance of even Rs.1500/-, therefore, her treatment is stopped since February, 2017. She also stated that looking to the present state of economic crisis and inflammation her maintenance is not possible from Rs. 1500/-, therefore, her maintenance may be enhanced from Rs.1500/- to Rs. 10,000/-.
5. The revisionist contested the said application by filing reply to it, before the Additional Principal Judge, family Court, Pilibhit. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 28.09.2022 partly allowed the application of the opposite party no. 2 and modifying order dated 22.03.2011 enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.1500/-per month to Rs.3,000/- per month and revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month on 10th day of every month. Aggrieved by this order, present revision has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was directed to deposit Rs.3,000/- per month on 10th day of every month from the date of application 07.11.2017 for enhancement. It is further submitted that there was no evidence before the Family Court about income of the revisionist and no evidence was led by the opposite party no. 2 about her income, therefore, award of Rs.3000/- to the opposite party no. 2 was based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, the order passed by the Family Court is based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is always ready and willing to keep opposite party no. 2 in his society but opposite party no. 2 left him without any justifiable cause and is living separately and presently interested only in receiving maintenance, therefore, she is guilty for desertion and is not entitled for any maintenance.
7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
8. The issue that revisionist has to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of application (under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) to opposite party no. 2 Smt. Shanti Devi has been finally decided. However, the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Shanti Devi has moved an application before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 07.11.2017. The learned trial court has widely discussed the economic status of the parties in both the paragraphs 13 of the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 and stated that according to the applicant wife Smt. Shanti Devi, revisionist has about 10 acres agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 15,000/- per month. She has also filed copies of Intkhab wherein revisionist's name is entered as Khatedar. The revisionist as DW-1 has himself admitted that he possess about 20-22 bighas land. This fact has been subscribed by DW-2 also. However, the revisionist has stated that the opposite party no. 2 has about 6 bighas land but he could not adduce any evidence in support of his statement. Thus, keeping in view the high rate of inflammation and keeping in view the needs of the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Shanti Devi, learned trial court, enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, the revisionist has stated that his land is situated in the bank of river and not suitable for agriculture. The opposite party no. 2 herself stated that revisionist is about 70 years old, thus it is ridiculous to say him hale and hearty. She has taken away all the ornaments and cash, when she left matrimonial home. There appears no illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error, to interfere in the impugned order dated 28.09.2022.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order need not be interfered and revision sans merit, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
10. The revision is dismissed. The impugned order dated 28.09.2022 passed by learned trial court is affirmed. The revisionist is directed to make payment to opposite party no. 2, as per order dated 28.09.2022 and continue to pay it in future also.
Order Date :- 28.04.2022
Rmk.
