Allahabad High Court
Abhay Pratap vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 July, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140395
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2212 of 2023
Revisionist :- Abhay Pratap
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vishnu Shankar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishnu Kumar Patil
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist, is taken on record.
2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 06.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 01, Firozabad in Maintenance Case No. 200 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist husband is directed to pay maintenance to opposite party No. 2, his wife and applicant in maintenance case, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month which will be payable on 10th of each succeeding month. The said maintenance was awarded from date of filing of application 30.03.2016.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has always been ready to live with opposite party No. 2, his wife and she left her matrimonial place without any sufficient cause only due to fact that she was not ready to reside with the revisionist at his place which is lying in a village. The revisionist is a farmer and has stated in statement of assets and liabilities filed before Family Court that he possess 5 bigha land and earning from said land is not of such quantum that he may be able to pay the amount of maintenance awarded in impugned judgment that too from date of filing of application as the same will incur huge economic burden on the revisionist. The revisionist is a High-School pass out whereas opposite party No. 2-his wife is a graduate. The revisionist stated before court below in his oral evidence that his wife Smt. Neetu was teaching in a private school and he had seen her visiting the school when they were living together. But learned court below has discarded this fact for want of documentary evidence. His earning from agricultural land is meagre and in no manner, the revisionist is in a position to comply with the impugned order passed by the court below. He next submitted that the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre and in the report of Conciliator also it is stated that the revisionist-husband is ready to take his wife to his home, he is even ready to take a house in Shikohabad on rent, if his wife is ready to live with him. The revisionist is also not having her ornaments and valuables along with him.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that learned court below has awarded the sum of Rs. 6,000/- as monthly maintenance which is reasonable and passed on requirement and background of the opposite party No. 2. This is minimum amount through which she may be able to cater to her needs somehow and any reduction will create difficulty for opposite party No. 2. She was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to harassment and torture meeted out to her from the hands of her husband. She stated in her evidence before court below that she was kicked by her in-laws on her stomach which resulted in miscarriage of foetus, however, she did not get herself medically examined. She left her matrimonial home not on sweet will but due to unavoidable reasons created by her husband and in-laws.
6. This is admitted that marriage of revisionist and opposite party No.2 took place on 04.03.2014 and opposite party No.2 resided with revisionist at her matrimonial place for sometime but their relations got strained during course of time. She has also raised allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and matrimonial cruelty against her husband and in-laws and she is residing separately from her husband from 01.02.2016. There is no evidence in support of the version of the revisionist that applicant was employed at some school
7. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered opinion that some modification in impugned order passed by learned court below is wanted in the larger interest of justice keeping in view of meagre economic resources of the revisionist who is a farmer and villager and has no other source of income except her agricultural land. Therefore, it is directed that the revisionist will pay the opposite party No. 2 maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month from date of filing of application to date of judgment dated 06.02.2023 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month from date of judgment dated 06.02.2023 onwards. The arrears calculated at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month will be paid in ten equal monthly installments. The impugned order stands modified however, it is made clear that any infraction in payment of arrears or regular maintenance as directed in present order will entail for issuance of coercive process against the revisionist by court below.
8. The revision stands partly allowed in the manner as aforesaid.
Order Date :- 14.7.2023
Nitika Sri.
