Shrikant @ Anshul Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9609 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shrikant @ Anshul Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 23 April, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23265
 
Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1081 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Shrikant @ Anshul Tripathi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gulam Mustafa
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Shishir Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.

2. Present criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against judgment and order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao in Case No. 414 of 2022 - Smt. Tanu and Another Vs. Shrikant @ Anshul Tripathi, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. thereby the trial Court has awarded maintenance in favour of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

3. Perusal of order sheet indicates that matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court by order dated 06.09.2024 and the revisionist was directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- before this Court. The petitioner was also granted interim protection. In compliance of directions of this Court, the said amount has been deposited by the revisionist and receipt to that effect is available on record. From the perusal of record it is evident that report of Mediator dated 10.03.2025, is available on record, which shows that mediation has failed and no settlement agreement could be arrived at between the parties. The report of Mediation Center dated 10.03.2025 is available on record.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party no. 2 has filed an application under section 125 CrPC before the family court, Unnao on 26.05.2022 against the revisionist. She has stated that she was married to the revisionist on 6.12.2022 and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but the revisionist and his family members were not happy with the dowry and demanded additional dowry of 5 lakhs. She has further stated that a female child was born on 03.11 2021 from the said wedlock. When the opposite party no. 2 and her parents could not fulfill the additional demand of dowry then the revisionist and his family members physically and mentally tortured her and ousted her from the matrimonial house alongwith minor daughter on 17.12.2021. The opposite party no. 2 has demanded maintenance of ?35,000 per month from the revisionist. The revisionist has denied all the allegations as false and fabricated and has stated that there has been no demand of dowry as well as no cruelty has been committed against opposite party no. 2. The revisionist claims that opposite party no. 2 is a freelance lady and that is why, she is not ready to live with the revisionist. The opposite party no. 2 is graduate and running a mobile shop and is earning ? 40,000 per month. On the other hand, the revisionist is unemployed and has no source of income and has also been ejected from his ancestral property by his parents.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has submitted that on perusal of the order passed by principal judge, Family Court, Unnao, it can be inferred that revisionist has enough resources to provide for the maintenance as he owns a transport company. Jewellery and cash worth 25 lacs have also been found in possession of revisionist which indicate his financial capabilities to grant maintenance to opposite party no. 2.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In this regard, the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Apex Court has held has under :-

"(c) Where wife is earning some income

90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:

90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [(2018) 12 SCC 199], this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.

90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16 SCC 715] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha, held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.

90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.

90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [(2015) 5 SCC 705] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.

(d) Maintenance of minor children

91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.

92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties."

8. On due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as facts and circumstances of the case and the view point of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs.Neha (supra), this Court is of the considered view that merely on the basis of the fact that the wife is earning, cannot be a ground for either reduction or denial of maintenance to her. The revisionist, being father to a minor child who is in custody of mother (opposite party no. 2), the revisionist (father) is responsible to bear the basic expenses including food, medical and educational.

9. In the present case, opposite party no. 2, is earning, however, it cannot be considered to be a ground for the revisionist to deny her claim for grant of maintenance, when the revisionist, as per record, has enough resources to provide the same. It is well settled that it is the obligation of father to provide for basic living expenses to his minor child and wife and therefore, revisionist has to provide maintenance, in the present case.

10. Considering the rival submissions and after perusal of record, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao, wherein opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been granted maintenance for an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Ms. Priyamvata (opposite party no. 3) has been awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month till she attains majority.

11. The revision being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.4.2025

A. Verma

(Alok Mathur, J.)