Brajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 26600 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187581
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5068 of 2023
 
Revisionist :- Brajendra Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ranvir Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Ranvir 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 12.10.2022, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 306 of 2019 (Smt. Kiran Devi vs. Brijejdra Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 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. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2, who is wife of revisionist from the date of application.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance awarded by the learned family court is very excessive and without considering the monthly income of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist is labourer having insufficient income and is unable to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned court below without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party no. 2.

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 for 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. 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. 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.

However, it is provided that the entire arrears as up to date shall be paid by the revisionist in six equal monthly installments, failing which, it is open for the opposite party no. 2 to execute the judgment and order dated 12.10.2022, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai.

Order Date :- 27.9.2023

sailesh