Allahabad High Court
Saziya Begum And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2675 of 2018
Revisionist :- Saziya Begum And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
List revised. Learned counsel for revisionists and learned AGA are present.
None is present for opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed for modification of the judgment and order dated 24.5.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court/FTC No.1, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1299 of 2015, under Section 125 Cr.P.C, P.S. Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that maintenance amount fixed by the Court below is not sufficient. The revisionists will not be in a position to cope up with the amount fixed by Court concerned as maintenance. Opposite party no.2 has also earning from the agricultural land. Impugned order warrants interference by this Court.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Maintenance amount fixed by Court concerned is a reasonable one.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, vide order dated 24.5.2018 application under Section 125 CrPC moved on behalf of the revisionists has been allowed by the Court concerned fixing Rs. 4,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 (wife) and Rs. 1000/- each to the revisionist nos. 2 and 3 (sons) per month as maintenance. It is not in dispute that the revisionist no.1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 and revisionist nos. 2 and 3 are their children. It has been admitted by the opposite party no.2 in his cross-examination that he possesses agricultural land. Khatauni has also been filed alongwith the affidavit as Annexure-1 which goes to show that after the death of Hadi Raza, father of opposite party no.2, now the opposite party no.2 is the recorded tenure holder of the said agricultural land alongwith his brothers and mother. Object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. A wife is also entitled to live with the befitting standard of husband. By the impugned order, the Court concerned has fixed total Rs. 6000/- per month to the wife and two children. While keeping in view the present state of higher inflation, hike in the prices, the fact that the husband of revisionist no.1 also possesses agricultural land and definitely he would have some earnings from the same and also the fact that it is the duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children, I am of the opinion that the maintenance mount settled by the learned trial court is insufficient and it will be in the interest of justice to enhance the maintenance amount fixed by the Court concerned vide impugned order. Therefore, the maintenance amount fixed for the revisionist no.1 (Smt. Saziya Begum - wife) as Rs. 4000/- is enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month and for revisionist nos. 2 and 3, minor children of the opposite party no.2, which was fixed as Rs. 1000/-each per month, is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- each per month. The impugned order is modified to the above extent. Rest of the terms, conditions and directions, as contained in the impugned order, shall remain effective.
With the above observations, the revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.1.2023
safi
