Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148624
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3415 of 2022
Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mirza Faheem Beg
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akshat Sinha,Himanshu Pandey
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Mr. Mirza Faheem Beg, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Chhaya Gautam, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Akshat Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and learned AGA appearing for respondent no.1/State.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 22.6.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 374 of 2019(Neelam and another vs. Sanjay Kumar) by which application of opposite party no.2 has been allowed under Section 125 Cr.P.C and revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to wife-opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000/- per month to minor son Anshu- opposite party no.3.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is highly excessive, without considering the income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that wife-opposite party no.2 alongwith minor son namely, Anshu left the house of revisionist without any reason and living with her parents and therefore, opposite party no.2 is not entitled for maintenance from the revisionist. Lastly, it is submitted that the revisionist had filed petition being Case No. 485 of 2019 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, but the opposite party no.2 is not ready to live with revisionist.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 submits that opposite party no.2 was being tortured on account of demand of dowry and the learned Family Court while deciding issue no.2 has recorded the finding that wife-opposite party no.2 had sufficient reason to live separately from her husband-revisionist. He further submitted that opposite party no.2 has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself as well as her minor son, who is opposite party no.3. The revisionist is husband of opposite party no.2 and he is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife as well as his minor son.
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 legally and 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 of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of the minor son cannot be said 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. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.7.2023
P.P.
