Allahabad High Court
Varun vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189627
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2436 of 2023
Revisionist :- Varun
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kishore
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Ashish Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Pavan Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2023, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Meerut, in Case No. 627 of 2018 (Smt. Sandhya and another vs. Varun) by which the application filed by opposite pary nos. 2 & 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no. 3, who is minor son of revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court is very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the learned family court while awarding excessive maintenance has failed to consider the comparative hardship of the revisionist.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the maintenance awarded by the court below is in lower side and no interference is required in this case.
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 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 at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the minor son 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 :- 3.10.2023
sailesh
