Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Arya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192726
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4564 of 2023
Revisionist :- Shailendra Arya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2023, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar, in Suit No. 331 of 2014 (Smt. Preeti Jain and others vs. Shailendra Arya), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar by which the application filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, who are minor children of revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance awarded to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 by the learned family court is very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 who is wife of revisionist is working as Teacher and having sufficient means for maintaining herself as well as opposite party nos. 3 and 4. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned family court without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount in favour of opposite party nos. 3 and 4.
Admittedly, the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are minor children of revisionist. The revisionist being father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his children in any circumstances. The father cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain his 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 father does not disclose to the court the exact amount of his income and the question of maintenance of children arises, the presumption would be against the father and the obligation of the father 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. 2,500/- per month each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, who are minor children of revisionist 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.
However, it is provided that the revisionist shall deposit the entire arrears, as up to date in six equal monthly installments, failing which, it is open to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 to execute the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.07.2023.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023
sailesh
