Allahabad High Court
Smt. Bhavna Sharma @ Ekata vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148963
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3767 of 2022
Revisionist :- Smt. Bhavna Sharma @ Ekata
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar,Prashant Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Balram Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Balram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 24.6.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 29 of 2019(Smt. Bhavna Sharma @ Ekata vs. Punit Kumar) by which application of revisionist has been allowed under Section 125 Cr.P.C and opposite party no.2 was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to his wife-revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 23.1.2019. The revisionist was tortured by the husband and his family members on account of demand of dowry and thereafter she was ousted from her matrimonial home and since 11.3.2019 she is residing with her parents. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 is a Chartered Accountant earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month whereas the revisionist has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. The learned Family Court has awarded only Rs.3000/- per month maintenance in favour of the revisionist. The maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is very meagre. Learned Family Court has failed to consider the evidence and materials which are available on record and has awarded very meagre amount to the revisionist.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that opposite party no.2 was not working as Chartered Accountant, rather he was working in the office of firm of Chartered Accountant namely, Mohit Sharma & Associates on the post of Audit Associate and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
Admittedly, the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no.2 being husband of revisionist 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. In the present case, as the opposite party no.2 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 when question of maintenance of wife arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal.
Learned Family Court has recorded the finding that the revisionist-wife had failed to prove the income of her husband and had awarded Rs.3000/- per moth as maintenance to the revisionist.
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 is too meagre and is liable to be enhanced.
In view of above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 24.6.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 29 of 2019 is modified and maintenance awarded is enhanced from Rs.3000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. The revisionist is entitled to receive maintenance from opposite party no.2 at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 26.7.2023
P.P.
