Allahabad High Court
Pooja Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175594
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5537 of 2023
Revisionist :- Pooja Sharma And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Srivastava Iii,Pratik Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hemant Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Hemant Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.
2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionists challenging therein the judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.22 of 2021 (Smt. Pooja Sharma and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month had been awarded in favour of Revisionist No.1 and maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Revisionist No.2.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that Opposite Party No.2 had passed out Diploma Course and is a technically skilled person. It has further been contended that at the time of marriage, Opposite Party No.2 was employed in a private company and was drawing salary of about Rs.50,000/- per month and thereafter, after resigning from the said job, he is doing his own business of repairing of technical equipments and thereby, is earning handsome monthly income.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that the Principal Judge,Family Court, Rampur while passing the impugned order dated 29.08.2023, had assessed the monthly income of Opposite Party No.2 only Rs.16,000/- per month, which is absolutely meager as there was categorical evidence on record that Opposite Party No.2 is a diploma holder and is a skilled person. It was also on record that Opposite Party No.2, at the time of marriage, was employed in a private company and was earning money and thereafter, he resigned from the said job and is doing business of repairing of electrical equipments and electrical wiring in the buildings.
5. It has further been argued that once there was categorical evidence, in respect of the technical qualification of Opposite Party No.2, before the trial court, his income ought to have been assessed, treated him to be a skilled person.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has also argued that in the society, a skilled person that too having passed out Diploma Course can easily earn Rs.1,000/- per day and thereby at least, monthly income of Opposite Party No.2 should have been assessed to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month.
7. On the other hand, Sri Hemant Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 has argued that though Opposite Party No.2 had passed out Diploma Course but after resigning from his job, he is doing small work of repairing of electrical equipments and thereby, he hardly earns Rs.10,000/- per month therefore, the trial court had assessed his monthly income at the higher side i.e. Rs.16,000/- per month. It has further been argued that the trial court, vide impugned order dated 29.08.2023, had awarded adequate monthly maintenance in favour of the revisionists, which is commensurate with the income of Opposite Party No.2.
8. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that Opposite Party No.2 before the trial court had admitted, in categorical terms, that he had passed out Diploma Course from a Polytechnic and is a skilled person.
9. This Court also finds that before the trial court, Opposite Party No.2 himself had admitted that at the time of his marriage, he was working in a private company as a Service Engineer and was earning some money. Later on, he resigned from his job and started work of repairing of electrical equipments and electrical wiring in the buildings. Once Opposite Party No.2 had admitted before the trial court that he possess technical qualification and is doing business of repairing of electrical eqipments and is also doing work of electrical wiring in the buildings, there cannot be any doubt that he is a skilled person and therefore, his income must be assessed on the basis of the wages available in the society for a skilled person.
10. This Court is of the view that since Opposite Party No.2 is a skilled person, his income must have been assessed, at least Rs.1,000/- per day for 25 days in a month i.e. Rs.25,000/- per month.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, treating income of Opposite Party No.2 as Rs.25,000/- per month, this Court finds that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur vide impugned order dated 29.08.2023 had awarded meager amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.5,500/- per month, which needs to be enhanced.
12. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Criminal Misc.Case No.22 of 2021 (Smt. Pooja Sharma and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma) is hereby modified to the extent, that Revisionist No.1 shall be entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and Revisionist No.2 shall be entitled for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month, with effect from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024
SFH
