Allahabad High Court
Smt. Parvina Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175371
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6052 of 2023
Revisionist :- Smt. Parvina Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ankit Kumar Yadav,Yash Raj Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Ankit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Durvijay Singh Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the judgment and order dated 28.9.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar in Misc. Case No. 550 of 2019 ( Smt. Parvina Devi Vs. Akhilesh Kumar) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of the revisionist.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that income of Opposite Party No. 2 is about Rs. 80,000/- per month as he is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by the U.P. Basic Education Board. It has further been submitted that the revisionist had obtained information under Right to Information Act 2005 from the authority concerned, wherein it had been categorically pointed out that Opposite Party No. 2 is earning about Rs. 80,000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar, in the impugned order dated 29.8.2023, had recorded categorical finding that, at the relevant point of time, Opposite Party No. 2 was earning monthly salary in between Rs. 70,000-72,000/-, therefore, it was obligatory on him to award maintenance to the revisionist which is commensurate with monthly income of Opposite Party No. 2. It has further been submitted that from a bare perusal of the contents of the impugned order dated 29.8.2023, it clearly comes out that monthly maintenance awarded in favour of the revisionist is neither adequate nor commensurate with the monthly income of Opposite Party No. 2. It has also been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the wife, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is entitled for an amount of maintenance which is sufficient for her to live at the same standard at which she was living when she was with her husband. It has also been argued that the living standard of the family of an Assistant Teacher working in a school run by U.P. Education Board is much higher and the revisionist can not maintain the same standard of life on maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month therefore, the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, awarded under the impugned order dated 29.8.2023, in no way can be said to be adequate and commensurate with the income of Opposite Party No. 2. Lastly it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, that the amount of monthly maintenance, awarded under the impugned order may be enhanced by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 is a disabled person and he has to bear expenses of his ailing mother therefore, he does not have enough financial resources to pay maintenance to the revisionist, more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. It has further been submitted that the revisionist in the entire revision has not stated that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is not sufficient for her to maintain normal standard of life therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to enhance the amount of maintenance awarded under the impugned order dated 29.8.2023.
6. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 that since he is a disabled person therefore, for living normal life, he has employed certain attendants and for that he has to pay them, as such even those expenses are to be excluded from his monthly income while determining the monthly maintenance admissible to the revisionist.
7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that it is admitted case of the parties on record, that Opposite Party No. 2 is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by U.P. Basic Education Board and is being paid salary from the State Exchequer. It is also admitted fact on record, that Opposite Party No. 2 is receiving salary of about Rs. 80,000/- per month.
8. This Court finds that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar, in the impugned order dated 29.8.2023, had recorded categorical finding that the monthly income of Opposite Party No. 2, at the relevant point of time, was in between Rs. 70,000-72,000/- and he also owns certain agricultural land and on that basis, the trial court had determined the monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the revisionist.
9. This Court is of the view that the wife, under section 125 Cr.P.C., is entitled for monthly maintenance of such amount which is sufficient for her to maintain the same standard of life which she would have maintained if she would have living with her husband. It is certain that the revisionist cannot maintain the same standard of life in the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month which she would have maintained if she would have living with her husband, who is admittedly earning Rs. 80,000/- per month.
10. Even otherwise, this Court on many occasions and even Hon'ble Supreme Court in various matters had awarded monthly maintenance to the wife, to the tune of 25 % of the monthly salary of the husband. So far as the argument raised on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, in respect of additional expenses, is concerned, I find that even if his expenses are excluded from his monthly income, the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded in favour of the revisionist cannot be said to be adequate and commensurate with monthly income of Opposite Party No. 2.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- awarded under the impugned order dated 29.8.2023 needs to be enhanced by this Court therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisionist is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
12. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.8.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar passed in Misc.Case No. 550 of 2019 ( Smt. Parvina Devi Vs. Akhilesh Kumar) is hereby modified to the extent, that the revisionist shall be entitled for maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024
Gss
