Allahabad High Court
Amit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85150
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3481 of 2023
Revisionist :- Amit
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Deepti,Sudhir Dixit,Utkarsh Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Daya Shanker Pandey,G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Although information was given to the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 regarding the date fixed in the matter, but none present on behalf of opposite party no.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case (Maintenance Application) No.110 of 2016 (Smt. Nidhi Singh & Another Vs. Amit) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad whereby the maintenance application filed by the applicants under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and the revisionist is directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.7500/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.7500/- per month to her minor son till remarriage of opposite party no.2 and attaining majority by her minor son respectively. It is also ordered that if in some other proceeding, order for payment of any interim / final maintenance amount has been passed against the present revisionist, the said amount shall be adjusted in the amount mentioned above.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance amount fixed by the learned Principal Judge is very excessive and high and the financial position and earning capacity of the parties have not been taken care of by the learned court. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2, the wife is an independent lady and she has obtained degree of B.D.S. and she earns a lot and her parents are also rich persons whereas the revisionist has a limited source of income and he is not in a capacity to pay Rs.15000/- per month to his wife and minor son as maintenance allowance. It is further submitted that besides the present judgment, the revisionist was also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- per month to his wife and Rs.2000/- per month to his minor child as maintenance amount in a case filed by opposite party no.2, the wife under the Domestic Violence Act passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that in this way, the revisionist is suffering from double jeopardy and he is compelled to give separate maintenance amount to his wife / opposite party no.2 and the minor child. It is, therefore, prayed that the learned Family Court did not consider all aspects of the matter and it has not used its legal jurisdiction in proper way. On these grounds, a prayer for setting aside the order dated 31.3.2023 by allowing the present revision has been made by the revisionist.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that the evidence available before the concerned Family Court was sufficient to show that the revisionist is a wealthy and capable person having MBA degree with him. The opposite party no.2 had submitted before the court that evidence in respect of income of the revisionist is his resume', profile, description of his earlier jobs / experience, copy of the passport and notably the revisionist made no denial of that. Although a statement was made by the present opposite party no.2 that she is capable to maintain herself and her minor child as well, but as a matter of fact, she is doing no earning and maintaining herself and her child as well.
6. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that to pass an order to pay Rs.15000/- to his wife and minor child by the revisionist as monthly maintenance amount is an excessive or exorbitant amount. In the backdrop of social and financial situation of the society and the families, Rs.15000/- as maintenance amount may be taken as a considerable amount, which requires no modification.
7. It is to be noted here that the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2023 is very much clear to make the liability of the revisionist some lighter as it declares that if any interim / final maintenance order has been passed against the present revisionist, that will be adjusted in the amount of Rs.15000/-, which has been fixed by the learned Principal Judge vide order dated 31.3.2023.
8. In view of that, I do not find any force in the revision. No illegality, infirmity or perversity has been found in the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2023.
9. Revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
ss
