Allahabad High Court
Gunjan Shankhdhar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 October, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:205065
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5233 of 2023
Revisionist :- Gunjan Shankhdhar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Chakshuvendra Pachauri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Darwari Lal
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Chakshuvendra Pachauri, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Darwari Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against ex-parte judgment and order dated 25.1.2021 passed by District Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.1015 of 2016 (Smt. Manju Sharma Vs. Gunjan Shankhdhar) as well as the order dated 2.2.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, by which the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in support of application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Family Court has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month by ex-parte judgment and order dated 25.1.2021 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. It is further submitted that the application filed by revisionist under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also dismissed in a very casual manner. The maintenance awarded by Family Court is an ex-parte order and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the revisionist. It is further submitted that learned Family Court without recording any finding in respect of income of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance. Learned Family Court failed to consider the comparative hardship of revisionist by passing the order of maintenance.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist has full knowledge about the pendency of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionist had already put in appearance before the Family Court on 9.3.2017 and 5.5.2017 and the case was adjourned on his request. Thereafter the revisionist did not appear before the Family Court and in spite of several opportunities he has not filed any objection to the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only to delay the disposal of application. The application filed by revisionist under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with delay condonation application was also rightly rejected by the learned Family Court after being satisfied that revisionist had full knowledge about the pendency of application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The maintenance awarded by the court below is almost just and proper and cannot said to be excessive in any manner.
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.
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.5,000/- 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.
Order Date :- 27.10.2023
Kpy
