Allahabad High Court
Sumit Miglani vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102080
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1243 of 2023
Revisionist :- Sumit Miglani
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Danish
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief for Sri Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Mohammad Danish, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist challenging the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Maintenance Case No. 279 of 2019 (Smt. Shilpi and Another vs. Sumit Miglani) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, whereby the Principle Judge, Family Court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 10,000/- to respondent no. 3 (minor son) as maintenance from the date of the application i.e., 13.06.2019.
3. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that he is earning less than Rs. 35,000/- per month by carrying on a business of medicine shop; he has no other source of income; he has other liability of taking care of his old mother and unmarried sister; he filed an income tax return paper which showed his income as nearly Rs. 35,000/- per month; in the view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another; AIR 2021 Supreme Court 569,at the most 20% of the income could have been awarded as maintenance allowance but the family court has instead granted 75% of his income as maintenance allowance; the respondent no. 2 (the wife) was directed to live with her husband in pursuance of the order of learned Judge, Family Court concerned under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but she never complied; she has left the house without any good reason; therefore the order is liable to be set aside.
4. The contention of the revisionist has been vehemently opposed by the other side.
5. I went through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the material on record.
6. It appears that two witnesses have been examined by the respondent no. 2 with regard to her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; besides the oral evidence a number of documentary evidence including the registration certificate of bullet motorcycle belonging to her husband, registration certificate of four wheeler namely, Hundai i-10 and Mahindra XUV, showing her husband as a registered owner thereof, have been filed; the husband has examined 7 witnesses from his side and certain documentary evidence which included a report of parivar paramarsh kendra, copy of application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, receipts of purchase of jewellery items etc., have been filed.
7. The learned trial court considered all the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the sides by indulging into detailed discussion of the same; the learned trial court noticed that in the declaration affidavit given on behalf of the wife alleging that her husband is having professional degree of B-Pharma; the source of earnings include a licensed liquor shop, giving money on credit, a medical shop, a big showroom belonging to her father in-law and two-storey ancestral house of value of about Rs. 2 crores; It is stated by him that monthly income of her husband is about Rs. 10 lakhs per month.
8. The learned trial court has also considered the declaration affidavit given on behalf of the husband, oral and documentary evidence given by him.
9. The learned trial court has touched each and every piece of evidence which was produced before the court from the rival sides and evaluated the same in right perspective.
10. In para-55 of the judgment, the trial court rightly noticed that the revisionist-husband deliberately did not file the income tax return of the year 2016-17, as was expected of him in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra). It has been noticed that no explanation has been given by him for non-filing of the same; the learned trial court in para-57 of the judgment noticed the fact that certain details which were required to be filled up in the affidavit were skipped over by him; the husband chose to write evasive and cryptic answer against certain column; the learned trial court rightly disbelieved the statement given by him that he had no bank account; At the same time the learned trial court noticed that admittedly he was running a medical shop and has been living a luxurious life; he has been maintaining expensive cars, motorcycle, running medical shop etc; the trial court found certain definite indicators implying that he had sufficient means to maintain his wife and son; after noting down several judgments of the higher courts with regard to the responsibility of husband towards maintaining his wife, with regard to deliberate non-disclosure of income and sources of earning, the factors which could have a bearing on the right to be maintained, the quantum of maintenance amount, attending facts and circumstances, the learned trial court taking a balanced view of the matter found the wife (instant respondent no. 2) and his son (instant respondent no. 3) entitled for maintenance from the revisionist; the learned trial court has taken much pains in thrashing the disputed points involved in this case and has discussed the evidence in sufficient detail; the revisionist could not point out any finding or observations given by the trial court which could be branded as perverse or arbitrary; the court also found that the parties belonged to economically higher strata of the society and allowed application directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 10,000/- to respondent no. 3 (minor son) as maintenance from the date of the application. In my view considering the social status of the parties the amount given as maintenance is just appropriate.
11. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order. Hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
#Vikram/-
