Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194301
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5031 of 2023
Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey,Mohan Lal Pandey,Narendra Kumar Shukla
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 24.07.2023, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court 1st, Jaunpur, in Case No. 1852 of 2020 (Anita Devi and another vs. Pradeep Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the application filed by opposite parties no. 2 & 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 3,500/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 1,500/- per month to opposite party no. 3, who is minor daughter 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 court below without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is minor daughter 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 daughter 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.3,500/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of the minor daughter 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 revisionist shall pay entire arrears as up to date in six equal monthly installments, failing which, it is open to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to execute the judgment and order dated 24.07.2023, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court 1st, Jaunpur, in Case No. 1852 of 2020.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
sailesh
