Allahabad High Court
Subhash Babu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194074
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4960 of 2023
Revisionist :- Subhash Babu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra,Devvrat Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjive Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
List has been revised.
No one is present on behalf of revisionist to press this criminal revision.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2023, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 898 of 2020 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. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 1,000/- per month each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, who are minor children of revisionist.
A perusal of record reveals that the learned family court after considering all the materials which are available on record has decided issue no. 1 holding that there is sufficient cause to opposite party no. 2 to live separately with the revisionist. The maintenance has been awarded by learned family court after considering the income and status of husband and the maintenance awarded by learned family court cannot be said to be excessive in any manner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 states that the monthly income of the revisionist, who is husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 is Rs. 35,000/- per month and the maintenance awarded by learned family court cannot be said to be excessive in any manner rather is it too meagre.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist and opposite party nos.3 and 4 are minor children of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and minor children 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. 3,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month each in favour of the minor children 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 :- 9.10.2023
sailesh
