Allahabad High Court
Rahul Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198439
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3557 of 2023
Revisionist :- Rahul Tripathi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Tripathi,Ashutosh Shukla,Shiv Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha
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 22.06.2023, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot, in Case No. 173 of 2019 (Smt. Manjula Devi vs. Rahul Tripathi), 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. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is unemployed having no source of income. It is further submitted that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court is very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned family court without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 submits that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court is in lower side and no interference is required by this Court.
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 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 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 on date in six equal monthly installments, failing which, it is open to opposite party no. 2 to execute the judgment and order dated 22.06.2023, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot, in Case No. 173 of 2019 (Smt. Manjula Devi vs. Rahul Tripathi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 13.10.2023
sailesh
