Ram Jatan Kumar vs Smt. Rachna Bhartiya
2023 Latest Caselaw 35876 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Jatan Kumar vs Smt. Rachna Bhartiya on 19 December, 2023

Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit

Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240442
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1745 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Ram Jatan Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- Smt. Rachna Bhartiya
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Misra,Ayush Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Nimesh Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
 

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Ist, Jaunpur in Case No.133 of 2016 (Munni Devi Vs. Kamlesh Yadav), by which the application filed by opposite party wife, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application to opposite party , who is wife of revisionist.

2. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is highly excessive and without any basis. The revisionist is labourer having no fixed income and the revisionist is facing great hardship on account of several litigations initiated by opposite party. 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 of the revisionist had awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party states that the maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of wife as awarded by the learned Family Court is almost just and proper and cannot said to be excessive in any manner.

5. Admittedly, the opposite party is legally married wife of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife 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.

6. 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.4,000/- per month in favour of the wife cannot treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.

7. 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.

8. The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.

9. However, it is provided that revisionist shall pay the entire arrears as on date in nine equal monthly installments to the opposite party, failing which it is open to opposite party to initiate recovery proceedings against the revisionist.

Order Date :- 19.12.2023

SFH