Allahabad High Court
Tabrez Alam Shaikh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173642
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1755 of 2024
Revisionist :- Tabrez Alam Shaikh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shahabuddin
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the judgment and order dated 1.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 1005 of 2021 (Rumana Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Tabrez Alam Shaikh) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C, maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 and maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month each had been awarded in favour of Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist is working as a driver of private passenger vehicles and his monthly income is hardly Rs. 10,000/- therefore, it is apparent that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh had awarded excessive maintenance in favour of Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 under the impugned order dated 1.03.2024.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has pointed out that the revisionist himself had admitted before the trial court that he is the driver of a vehicle which is being run under the contract of the Ola Company. The revisionist had further admitted that, at an earlier point of time, he had been in Saudi Arab, where he was employed and had earned money. It had also been admitted by the revisionist that he is capable of maintaining himself and his family.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, on the basis of the aforesaid admission made by the revisionist before the trial court, has argued that the impugned order dated 1.03.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the instant revision is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.
7. I find that the revisionist had categorically admitted before the trial court that he has sufficient source of income to maintain himself and his family. I further find that the revisionist while deposing before the trial court had admitted that he is the driver of a vehicle which is being run under the contract with the Ola Company in Mumbai and further he had also admitted that, at an earlier point of time, he was employed in Saudi Arab and had earned sufficient money.
8. This Court is of the view that the trial court, in the matters of award of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is under obligation to assess the income of the husband as per his overall financial status and in the present case, the entire facts and circumstances in respect of the revisionist's income had been considered by the trial court. The finding recorded by the trial court, in the impugned order dated 1.03.2024, is extracted as under :-
"??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???
??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? 125 ?? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ???-???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???-???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???-???? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ?????
??????? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???-???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??, ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???-???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ? ????? ?????? ???-???? ???? ??? ?????? ???
??????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??, ????? ??? 80000 ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??-??? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???????????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ??, "??? ???? ???? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????, ???? ??????" ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???
???? 125 ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? 125 ?????????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???/???? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ??, ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???/???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???/???? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??, ? ?? ???? ?????????? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???
??????? ??????? ? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? 1 ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???, ?????? ???????, ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??, ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ???"
9. Since the trial court, on the basis of admission made by the revisionist, had recorded a finding that he has sufficient source of income and thereby had proceeded to awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to Opposite Party No. 2 and Rs. 2500/- per month each to Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4., I do not find that the trial court in any manner had awarded excessive maintenance in favour of Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4. I also do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 1.03.2024.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2024/Gaurav
