Allahabad High Court
Abu Talib vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 December, 2023
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235182
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3657 of 2023
Revisionist :- Abu Talib
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2023, passed by Judicial Officer, Gram Court Patiyali, District Kasganj, in Misc. Case No. 50 of 2021 (Smt. Yashmeen and another vs. Abu Talib), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the application filed by opposite parties no. 2 & 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- 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 from the date of application i.e. 20.03.2021 and thereafter Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court is very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the learned court below has not recorded any finding in respect of income of the revisionist and without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married 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. 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 maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.2,000/- 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 revisionist shall pay entire arrears as on date in six equal monthly installments, failing which, it is open to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to execute the judgment and order dated 18.04.2023.
Order Date :- 12.12.2023
sailesh
