Hassan Kadari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 22763 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168977
 
Court No. - 79
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 234 of 2023
 
Revisionist :- Hassan Kadari
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Naushad,Pramod Kumar Sinha
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia in Misc. Case No.37 of 2017 (Shahnaz Parveen and another Vs. Hassan Kadari) by which the application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs.1,000/- per month to opposite party no.3, who is minor son of revisionist.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that initially the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by Civil Judge (J.D.)-IInd/Judicial Magistrate, Ballia vide order dated 2.6.2011 and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.1,200/- per month as maintenance jointly to opposite party no.2 and her son. The revisionist had complied the order dated 2.6.2011 and regularly paid the maintenance as awarded by the court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without there being any delay. It is further submitted that learned Family Court without recording any finding in respect of income of the revisionist and without considering the comparative hardship, has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of minor son cannot said to be excessive in any manner.

Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is minor son of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor son 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of the minor son cannot treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.

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 entire arrears as up-to-date, shall be paid by the revisionist in six equal monthly instalments to the opposite party nos.2 and 3, failing which it is open for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to recover the same from the revisionist.

Order Date :- 22.8.2023

Kpy