Gyan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25395 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180874
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4380 of 2023
 
Revisionist :- Gyan Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Narayan Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Raj Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot, in Suit No. 38 of 2021 (Sulekha Devi and others vs. Gyan Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot by which the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- 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 son of revisionist.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned family court has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance without recording any finding in respect of income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the learned family court without considering the comparative hardship has awarded Rs. 2,500/- 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 son of revisionist. Lastly, it is submitted that the revisionist has regularly paid Rs. 2,500/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 as interim maintenance before disposal of application, which has also not been adjusted by the learned family court.

Admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is minor son 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 son 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. 2,500/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the minor son cannot treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre.

No grounds for interference is made out.

However, any amount paid by the revisionist as interim maintenance to the wife shall be adjusted towards final settlement of arrears.

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal revision is disposed of.

Order Date :- 19.9.2023

sailesh