Allahabad High Court
Suraj Pal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202045
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5465 of 2023
Revisionist :- Suraj Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamala Kant Pandey,Shrawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Krishna Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2023 passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Case No.- 162 of 2018 by which the application filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist and Rs. 1,000/- per month to opposite party no.3, who is minor daughter of revisionist from the date of application till the date of judgement and thereafter Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to minor daughter.
It is submitted by learned counsel or the revisionist that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is highly excessive and without any basis. It is further submitted that the revisionist is unemployed having no source of income and the learned Family Court without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist has awarded very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be excessive in any manner rather it is too meagre.
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.3,000/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of minor daughter cannot be 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 the entire arrears as on date in six equal monthly installments. In case of default in payment as indicated above, it is open to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to enforce the award of learned Family Court by filing application under Section 128 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 18.10.2023
Virendra
