Allahabad High Court
Megh Singh @ Megharaj Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194107
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2564 of 2023
Revisionist :- Megh Singh @ Megharaj Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravi Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2023, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Aligarh, in Case No. 56/11 of 2012 (Smt. Poonam Devi vs. Megh Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the application filed by opposite party no. 2 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.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court to the opposite party no. 2 is very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is working as Anganbadi Karyakarti and is earning Rs. 3,500/- per month, as such, she is fully able to maintain herself. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned family court without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist has awarded a very huge amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no. 2 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 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 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 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 pay the entire arrears as up to date in six equal monthly installments to the opposite party no. 2, failing which, it is open to opposite party no. 2 to execute the judgment and order dated 14.02.2023, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Aligarh, in Case No. 56/11 of 2012 (Smt. Poonam Devi vs. Megh Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
sailesh
