Allahabad High Court
Narander Kumar Jaisawal vs Smt. Reeta Jaisawal And 2 Others on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164138
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1490 of 2023
Revisionist :- Narander Kumar Jaisawal
Opposite Party :- Smt. Reeta Jaisawal And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2022, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Gorakhpur in Case No. 11 of 2015 (Smt. Reeta Jaiswal and others vs. Narendra Kumar Jaiswal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Goraghnath, District Gorakhpur by which the application filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 1, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 1,500/- each to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, who are minor sons of revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no. 2 along with her sons had voluntarily left the house of revisionist and resides with her parents. It is further submitted that the learned family court without considering the income of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 1 to 3.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 3 has submitted that the opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist was tortured by revisionist for want of dowry. The opposite party no. 2 is house wife having no income and is not able to maintain herself and her children. The maintenance awarded by the court below is in lower side and no interference is required in this case.
Admittedly, the opposite party no. 1 is legally married wife of revisionist and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are minor sons of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.1 and father of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor sons in any circumstances. The husband cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain his wife and children. In the present case as the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Now it is the settled position of law that when the husband does not disclose to the court the exact amount of his income and the question of maintenance of wife and children arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that the maintenance awarded @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 1, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 1,500/- each to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, who are minor sons of revisionist, cannot be said to be excessive in any manner.
In view of above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
However, it is provided that the revisionist shall pay the entire arrears as up to date in six equal monthly installments, failing which, it shall be open to the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 to execute the impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2022 passed by family court and to recover the entire arrears from the revisionist.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
sailesh
