Allahabad High Court
Mahadheesh Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 September, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185934
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4504 of 2023
Revisionist :- Mahadheesh Upadhyay
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anees Baig,Anwar Hussain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Mr. Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.5.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad in Case No.977 of 2020(Smt.Seema Devi and two others vs. Mahadhees) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Ramgarh, District Firozabad by which the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay @Rs.1,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 who is wife of revisionist and Rs.750/- per month each to opposite party nos. 3 & 4 who are minor children of the revisionist from the date of application.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Family Court, without considering the financial status of the revisionist and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist, has awarded maintenance on higher side. The learned Family Court while awarding maintenance has failed to consider the comparative hardship of the revisionist.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are minor sons of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party nos. 3 and 4 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and children in any circumstance. 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 arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal.
Considering rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, this Court is of the view that maintenance amount @ Rs.1500/- per month awarded by the Family Court in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs.750/- per month each to opposite party nos.3 & 4, cannot be said to be excessive and even otherwise it is meagre amount.
In view of above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, it is provided that entire outstanding amount shall be paid by the revisionist in three monthly equal installments.
Order Date :- 25.9.2023
P.P.
