Allahabad High Court
Pramod @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60605
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 521 of 2022
Revisionist :- Pramod @ Pappu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Suhail Kashif,Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prachi
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Instant criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 20.2.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge/Family Court-IInd, District Pratapgarh in Maintenance Case No. 3901920/2010 (Kusumlata and others vs. Pramod Kumar @ Pappu), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant (his wife) and Rs. 1,000/- each to applicant nos. 2 to 4 (minor children of applicant and opposite party), thus total Rs. 6,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance against present revisionist which is payable from the date of order dated 20.2.2021.
Factual matrix of the case in brief is that marriage of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized in the year 2002 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Smt. Kusumlata, wife of revisionist, moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with averment that her husband used to make complaint of bringing meagre dowry sometimes and used to demand Rs. 50,000/- cash and a motor-cycle as additional dowry which his parents were unable to meet. The couple were blessed with three children, two son and one daughter, out of their wedlock. The children were residing with the applicant. The opposite party is an alcohalic addict and gambler. He is a tractor driver. He earns around Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month by engaging in agricultural activities and driving. He used to coerce and subject the applicant to matrimonial cruelty and ultimately kicked her out from his home. Applicant is a resourceless woman. She is hardly educated. She has no independent source of earning. The opposite party used to harass her in need of dowry. Opposite party appeared and filed his written statement in maintenance case. Learned court below after considering evidence and pleadings of the parties gave finding that opposite party is able to maintain his wife and children. The applicant has no independent source of earning. She is unable to maintain herself. Marriage is admitted by the parties. Applicant has left the association of her husband due to sufficient reasons. The court below has quantified the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to her minor children from the date of judgment.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that presently all the three children are residing with the revisionist. He depends on meagre agricultural income. He occasionally earns some money from driving tractor and it is very difficult for him to give maintenance to the wife and children from his meagre earning and economic resources. Respondent no. 2 was not willing to live at her matrimonial home. She is woman of easy virtue and intended to live separately from her husband. She lived at her matrimonial home only for eight years. Learned trial court has awarded maintenance to the applicants without considering the economic resources and ability of the revisionist to pay the maintenance quantified in impugned order.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that revisionist forcefully took the children from custody of her mother and at present they are residing with the revisionist, however, respondent no. 2 was willing to keep her children along with her. Respondent no. 2 stated that revisionist took the children from her custody in phases against her consent. It is also submitted that in present criminal revision matter was referred to mediation but mediation failed due to non cooperation of the revisionist and after failure of mediation in August, 2022, he forcefully took the children from the custody of the opposite party.
The amount awarded by learned court below is reasonable and this is minimum amount for maintenance and maintenance of any person or child. I find no substantial infirmity, factual or legal error in impugned order passed by learned court below while awarding the maintenance to the applicants against present revisionist, however, keeping in view the fact that whatever reasons as the children are presently residing with the revisionists, some modification is required due to subsequent development in impugned order.
Maintenance awarded to the applicant/respondent no. 2 is affirmed and she will receive the maintenance from the revisionist as directed in impugned order. The maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to each of three children of the parties will also be provided to respondent no. 2 from the date of impugned order to August, 2022 and thereafter the maintenance awarded to his children will cease to operate.
Revision stands disposed of with above observations.
However, it is directed that any infraction in compliance of above direction by revisionist will entail coercive action against him by orders of learned court below.
Order Date :- 20.9.2023
Anand
