Satendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 38351 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181919
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4969 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Satendra Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- ,Surendra Nath Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Gautam
 

 
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Surendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. List of fresh cases is being revised. No one is present on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.

3. The revisionist through this revision has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.8.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 882 of 2021 (Smt. Kiran Vs. Satendra Singh) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C, maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that he is working as a Class-IV employee in the Nagar Nigam, Moradabad and is drawing monthly salary of Rs. 30,365/-. It has further been contended that the trial court, under the impugned order dated 16.8.2023, had awarded excessive maintenance in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that once, it is admitted on record that the revisionist's monthly salary is only Rs. 30,365/-, there could not have been any occasion for the trial court to award maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

6. Name of Sri Manoj Kumar Gautam Advocate is shown in the cause list as counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 but in spite of list of fresh cases being revised, no one is present on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, as such this Court has no other option except to proceed to decide this matter.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

8. I find that the trial court, in the impugned order dated 16.8.2023, had categorically recorded that the revisionist is working as a Class-IV employee in the Nagar Nigam, Moradabad and is getting salary of Rs. 30,365/- per month.

9. This Court finds that once it is established on record that the revisionist's salary is only Rs. 30,365/- per month, the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is little excessive and needs to be adjusted and made commensurate with the monthly income of the revisionist.

10. This Court is of the view that the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, in favour of Opposite Party No. 2, would be adequate and commensurate with the monthly income of the revisionist.

11. Accordingly, this revision is party allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.8.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 882 of 2021 (Smt. Kiran Vs. Satendra Singh) is hereby modified with a direction that the revisionist shall pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Opposite Party No. 2 w.e.f. the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Order Date :- 21.11.2024

Gaurav