Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150914
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5190 of 2022
Revisionist :- Ranjeet
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Prakash Misra,A/S0929
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Shashi Prakash Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 to 4 and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 19.09.2022, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Misc. Case No. 233/11 of 2018 (Smt. Gunja and others vs. Ranjeet), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar by which the application filed by opposite parties no. 2 to 4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 1,500/- each per month to opposite party nos. 3 & 4, who are minor children of revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist is ready to keep opposite party nos. 2 to 4 who are his wife and minor children. Lastly, it is submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 without any sufficient reason have left the house of revisionist and as such, there is no entitlement of any maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have left the house of revisionist on being tortured on account of demand of dowry and there is sufficient reason to the wife and the children to live separately from the revisionist.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are minor children of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and children 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 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs. 1,500/- each per month in favour of both the minor children cannot treated 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. No ground for interference is made out. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
sailesh
