Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Sahu vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 February, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17680
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5953 of 2023
Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Sahu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Deepak Singh Patel,Abdul Zarrar Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement & order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Misc. Case No. 392/2018; whereby, application under Section 125 CrPC was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party nos. 2 & 3 from the date of the order.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgement is perverse, erroneous and bad in law. He further submits that the court below has not applied its judicial mind while passing the impugned order as the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to live at in-laws house with the revisionist. He further submits that the court below has not followed the mandatory provisions while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 left her husband's house on her own sweet will and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Therefore, the maintenance amount as awarded by the court below is excessive and the order impugned has been passed without application of mind.
At this stage, regard may be had to the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Shamima Farroqui v. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai[14], it has been ruled that:-
"Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal[15] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat[16]."
This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.
In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash[17] wherein it has been opined thus:-
"An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.
In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash[17] wherein it has been opined thus:- "An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the pthe matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.
In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. As is manifest, the High Court has become oblivious of the fact that she has to stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptible which would show that order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no revisional court should have interfered with the reason on the base that it would have arrived at a different or another conclusion. When substantial justice has been done, there was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband had retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved reduction. It only reflects the non-application of mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order.
After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the order impugned as well averments made in the present revision, this Court finds that only a meagre amount has been awarded to the wife as maintenance and that too from the date of the order.
I have perused the order impugned which shows that no illegality or perversity has been attributed with the findings as recorded in the order impugned. Moreover, learned counsel for the revisionist has also failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded in the order impugned.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court as quoted above, no case for grant of any interference is made out.
Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
Amit Mishra
