Allahabad High Court
Istikar Alias Babloo vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179657
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5046 of 2023
Revisionist :- Istikar Alias Babloo
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anmol Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Anmol Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No.1 and Sri Shashi Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.
2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the judgment and order dated 11.8.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Agra in Maintenance Case No.462/2018 (Smt. Najish Vs. Istikar) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month had been awarded with effect from 19.8.2018 till 11.8.2023 and maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month had been awarded with effect from 11.8.2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist is only a labourer and hardly earns Rs.6000- Rs.7000 per month therefore, it is not possible for him to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000- per month to Opposite Party No.2. It has further been argued that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Agra in its order dated 11.8.2023 had recorded that the revisionist's mother is ill and therefore, he has to bear the expenses of her treatment but at the time of award of maintenance, the said expenses have not been taken into account.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 has argued that the revisionist himself had admitted before the trial court that he is doing work of stitching of the shoes and therefore, the learned trial court while assuming the revisionist's daily income as Rs.300- Rs.400 had actually determined his income at the lower side therefore, the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded in favour of Opposite Party No.2, in no way can be termed as excessive.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the learned trial court had considered the issue regarding monthly income of the revisionist in detail and had recorded the following findings:-
"??????? ?????? ???? ??-???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? "?????-8 ???" ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? "??????" ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????/????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???? 16? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???????????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???, ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???????????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ???? ??????? ?????? 6-7 ???? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??. 300/- - 400/- ????? ???????? ??????? ??. 9000/- -12000/- ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??. 6000/- - 7000/- ????? ???????? ??? ???? ??, ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????????? ???
??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????-??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??-???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??-???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??, ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???"
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court categorically reveals that the revisionist's monthly income had been assessed treating him to be a labourer and it can be seen that now a days, even a labourer earns Rs.400/- per day and if his income for 25 days is taken into account, that comes to Rs.10,000/- per month. This Court finds that if the revisionist's income is assessed at the lower side i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month, the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded in favour of Opposite Party No.2, in no way can be termed as excessive.
7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.8.2023.
8. Accordingly, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
9. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Agra is directed to expedite the execution of the impugned order dated 11.8.2023.
Order Date :- 18.11.2024
Salim
