Shareef Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 25955 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184599
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1209 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Shareef Ahmad
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Shabbir,Mohd. Tasleem
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ehtesham Afsar Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the revisionist, which is taken on record.

Heard Mohd. Shabbir, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Ehtesham Afsar Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 16.1.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Bareilly in Misc. Case No.637 of 2019 (Smt. Hina Parveen Vs. Shareef Ahmad), by which the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the maintenance has been enhanced from Rs.1,200/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.3.2019 and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month to opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist. It is further submitted that just after 15 days on 15.4.2019 the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2 without disclosing any change of circumstances of the parties, as required under Section 127 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was pre-mature and learned Family Court had erred in allowing the application by enhancing the maintenance.

Record shows that application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was pending for about 4 years and certainly the circumstances between the parties have been changed due to passage of time. More so maintenance enhanced by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of judgment cannot said to be excessive in any manner.

Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded 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.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.

Order Date :- 22.9.2023

Kpy