Allahabad High Court
Irshad Ahmad @ Guddu vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83625
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3121 of 2023
Revisionist :- Irshad Ahmad @ Guddu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Israr,Parvez Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Chahar
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. In the present criminal revision, the impugned judgement and order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Agra has been challenged whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by opposite party no.2 Smt. Shaira Begum was partly allowed by the court and he was directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,500/- per month to opposite party no.3 per month till his attaining the age of majority from the date of presentation of the case i.e., 31.07.2012 till the date of judgement.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned judgement and order is completely illegal and perverse and has been passed without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The income of the revisionist has been wrongly assessed by the learned Family Court. Opposite party nos.2 & 3 were not entitled for such maintenance as provided by the learned Family Court and the financial position of the revisionist was not taken into account by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned judgement and order. The impugned order has been passed without assigning any cogent reasons or finding but it is a result of arbitrary action of the concerned family court. It is next submitted that the divorce took place between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 with the consent of both the sides on 31.12.2003 and one time settlement took place between the husband and wife as since then, the marital relations between the two came to an end and it was also settled between the parties that in terms of the said compromise neither of the parties shall take any legal action against the other side.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 & 3 has vehemently opposed the present revision and it has been submitted that the so-called compromise deed between the parties is a concocted piece of evidence and opposite party no.2 never made her signature on any compromise deed rather her signatures were obtained on plain paper and she completely denies the fact of divorce between both the sides. She even does not know as to what has been mentioned in the alleged compromise deed.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705 has held that on the plea that the husband does not have the means to pay maintenance as he does not have a job or his business is not doing well are only bald excuses and in fact they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
6. In Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kmar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that it is the duty of an able-bodied husband to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and children.
7. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303.
8. It appears from the perusal of the record that earlier ex-parte judgement was passed against the revisionist in this case and a miscellaneous case was filed by the revisionist to set aside the ex-parte judgement which was allowed vide order dated 09.01.2020 with condition that the present revisionist shall pay 50 per cent of the total outstanding amount of maintenance and the case was restored. The said order was challenged before the High Court in Criminal Revision No.527 of 2020 wherein the order was passed before this Court to deposit 20 per cent of the total outstanding amount by the revisionist vide order dated 25.08.2021 but no amount of maintenance was paid by the revisionist.
9. Since the factum of divorce by mutual consent has been denied completely by opposite party no.2, it was incumbent upon the revisionist to prove the aforesaid fact by cogent evidence which the revisionist failed to submit as found by the learned family court. The observations made by the learned family court that the husband has legal and moral duty to maintain her wife and issues borne out of the wedlock of husband and wife and he cannot escape from his liability on the basis of blame excuses. The learned family court observed that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the present revisionist in respect of any job or income of the wife/opposite party no.2 whereas the revisionist who resides in the joint family with his parents and is employee at a private shop has a certain monthly income.
10. In the present situation of inflammation and standards of life, it cannot be said that the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/-per month as granted by the learned family court is an excessive amount. The revisionist's aged is about 42 years and he is capable of doing some job and maintaining himself as well as his wife and child.
11. For the sake of argument, if the court presumes that revisionist has no income from his job or from rent of Maruti Van, even then revisionist is duty bound to provide the maintenance to his wife, as is held Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SC 805 and if he engaged himself in labour work also too then also he may earned as a un-skilled labour about Rs.350/- to Rs.400/- per day as a minimum wages.
12. In the aforesaid discussions, it transpires that the learned counsel for the revisionist could not mention any irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment. On the contrary the revisionist is not paying any amount towards the maintenance of his wife/opposite party no.2, which further goes to show the conduct of revisionist and his negligence to maintain his wife. Hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. Thus it is explicitly clear that the plea of the revisionist that he does not have any source of income and he could not maintain the wife is no answer as he is mature and an able-bodied person having good health and physique and he can earn enough to meet the expenses of his wife. The revisionist husband in his written statement does not plead that he is not an able-bodied person nor he is able to prove sufficient earning or income of the opposite party no.2.
14. Further, from the perusal of the impugned order it reveals that the concerned Family Court has directed for payment of Rs. 2,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the opposite party no.2 - wife from the date of the said order and Rs. 1,500/- per month to opposite party no.3 from the date of the application. Keeping in view the high inflation rate and rising prices, the amount awarded by the concerned Family Court as interim maintenance cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant or on higher side. It also appears that in compliance of the directions given in the impugned order, the revisionist has not paid even a single penny to the opposite party no.2 wife so far.
15. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the settled law on the point and also keeping in view the conduct of the revisionist that he even having sufficient means and capacity neglected and refused to maintain his wife, the opposite party no.2, in my view, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity The revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Court No.1, Agra in case No. 618 of 2012 (Smt. Shaira Begum and another Vs. Irshad Ahmad) under Section 125 CrPC, Police Station Shahganj, District Agra is liable to be affirmed.
16. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed and the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 is affirmed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Shivangi
