Irfan vs Smt. Shahjahaan And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 36165 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Irfan vs Smt. Shahjahaan And Another on 5 November, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172628
 
Court No. - 87
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4045 of 2023
 
Revisionist :- Irfan
 
Opposite Party :- Smt. Shahjahaan And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pt. K. K. Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kumar Singh,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
 

1. Heard Sri K. K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 1.

2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the judgment and order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Claim Petition No. 329 of 2019 (Irfan Vs. Shahjahaan) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C, maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that after decision of the Claim Petition No. 329 of 2019 vide order dated 19.06.2023, Opposite Party No. 1 has got job and is presently working as a Security Guard in Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi on contractual basis and is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has further argued that since after the judgment and order dated 19.06.2023, whereby maintenance had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 1, circumstances have changed and now Opposite Party No. 1 is earning handsome amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month therefore, it can easily be inferred that now she is able to maintain herself in a dignified manner. It has also been argued that since Opposite Party No. 1 has got job after passing of the order dated 19.06.2023 therefore, now in the change circumstances revisionist cannot be fastened with a liability to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to Opposite Party No. 1.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist after placing the aforesaid arguments before this Court has apprised to the Court that in fact Opposite Party No. 1 had got job on 10.05.2023 and prior to the said date judgment in Claim Petition No. 329 of 2019 was reserved and thereafter it was delivered on 19.06.2023.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has also argued that in this revision, the revisionist has specifically pleaded that the monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-, now available for Opposite Party No. 1, is sufficient for maintaining normal standard of her life and that contention raised by the revisionist has not been denied by Opposite Party No. 1 while filing her counter affidavit.

7. On the other hand, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 1 has argued that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in its order dated 19.06.2023 had recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist is a healthy male and therefore, minimum income can be assumed and thereby the court had assumed his monthly income as Rs. 12,000/- and on that basis a meagre amount of maintenance i.e. Rs. 4,000/- had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 1.

8. It has further been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 had categorically held that the cases whereby wife is earning some income, that itself cannot disentitle the wife to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been argued that in the present case Opposite Party No. 1 has got appointment as a Security Guard on contractual basis and she is earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month which is insufficient for her to maintain average standard of life and therefore, the maintenance awarded in her favour under the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 should not be interfered with or modified by this Court.

9. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 1 has stressed upon before this Court that as per the prevailing circumstances in the society, income of Rs. 10,000/- per month for a female cannot be treated as sufficient income for maintaining normal standard of life. It has also been submitted before this Court that once the wife has been ousted by the husband from his house, she has no other option except to do petty jobs for maintaining the normal standard of her life.

10. It has also been submitted that even if the maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 is added to her present monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-, that comes only to Rs. 14,000/- per month and by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the income of Rs. 14,000/- per month is more than the income required by Opposite Party No. 1 for maintaining the normal standard of her life.

11. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 1 has apprised the Court that while filing counter affidavit in this revision Opposite Party No. 1 had denied the averments made by the revisionist and in Paragraph No. 13 it has been categorically stated that the suitable reply shall be given at the time of arguments before the Court.

12. Lastly, it has argued that keeping in view the prevailing circumstances in the society and the requirement of monthly income for a person to maintain the normal standard of life, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order dated 19.06.2023.

13. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2023 had recorded a finding regarding the monthly income of the revisionist, and on the general assumption that he is a healthy male and therefore, he may earn Rs. 400 a day, had come to a conclusion that he must be earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. For ready reference the finding recorded in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2023 is extracted as under:

"??????? ?????? ???-?-

?- ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ?

11- ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????????????? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ?????/ ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????/ ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ? ?????????????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????/ ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ????? ??, ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??, ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?????/ ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???/ ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????/ ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???"

??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ? ????????? ???? ???? ??? "

14. I have gone through the finding recorded by the Family Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2023 and it is apparent from the record that Opposite Party No. 1 while filing the claim petition, categorically pleaded that the revisionist is doing some work related to computers, and that fact has not been denied by the revisionist rather it had been accepted. The revisionist has not denied the nature of work but had only denied the claim made by Opposite Party No.1 regarding his income.

15. This Court is of the view that once there was categorical admission by the revisionist before the Family Court that he is doing certain work related with computers, then the Family Court must have assessed his income, at least treating him to be a skilled person and therefore, his monthly income must have been assessed on the basis of the daily wages provided for the skilled person. This Court finds that the Family Court had assessed the revisionist's monthly income on a lower side.

16. So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist that Opposite Party No. 1, after the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2023, has got job as a Security Guard on contractual basis and is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, is concerned, this Court is of the view that merely because some maintenance is being received by the wife, she cannot sit idle at home and therefore, her subsequent job cannot disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband. The wife's monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- is out of her contractual employment which is not certain and can come to an end on any day and further this Court is of the view that Rs. 10,000/- per month, in no way can be treated as sufficient monthly income for a female to maintain normal standard of life.

17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, even if it is assumed that Opposite Party No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and is receiving Rs. 4,000/- maintenance per month, the income of Rs. 14,000/- per month is hardly sufficient to maintain normal standard of life for a wife.

18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2023.

19. Accordingly, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.11.2024/Gaurav