Vishal Bajpai vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4835 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vishal Bajpai vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19244
 
Court No. - 73
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 212 of 2025
 
Revisionist :- Vishal Bajpai
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mridul Mishra,Umesh Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 23.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar in Maintenance Case No. 1165 of 2019 (Ruchi Trivedi @ Ruchi Vishal Bajpai Vs. Vishal Bajpai), under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance has been granted in favour of opposite party no.2 by ex-parte judgment.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The marriage of revisionist with opposite party no.2 has taken place in the year 2010 and out of that marriage, they have one girl child. The opposite party no.2 has left her matrimonial home without any just cause and the child of opposite party no.2 is being maintained and looked after by the revisionist. The revisionist is providing education to said child. It was submitted that no notice or summon was served upon revisionist and the Family Court has granted maintenance to the opposite party no.2 by ex-parte judgment dated 23.12.2022. The revisionist was residing in Mumbai and no summon / notice was served upon him.

4. It is further submitted that the Family Court has held income of revisionist as 25,000/- per month and awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2. The revisionist was already bearing expenses in the tune of Rs. 14,000/- per month on education of his daughter and thus, the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is excessive and arbitrary. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the revision and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The Family Court has clearly observed that notice was served upon revisionist but he did not appear and contest the proceedings under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. and thus, the said case was decided by ex-parte judgment. It was stated that applicant is an officer in Universal Sompo General Insurance Company in Mumbai and in the year 2022 his salary was Rs. 60,000/- per month, which has also been noted by the Family Court in the impugned order. In view of salary of revisionist, it cannot be said that maintenance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month is excessive or arbitrary.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 125 of Cr. P. C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose [Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521]. In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 802, the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807], the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact that parents have also been brought into the category of persons entitled for maintenance. It was observed that this provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect, and inhibit neglect of women, children, old and infirm and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. Again in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It was held the provision provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.

8. From above-stated case laws, it is quite clear that Section 125 Cr. P.C is a measure of social legislation and it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children. In this case, it is not disputed that opposite party no.2 is wife of revisionist and their marriage has taken place on 29.05.2010 and out of that marriage, they have one girl child. The opposite party no.2 has filed the aforesaid case under Section -125 Cr.P.C., alleging that she was harassed by her husband and his family members on account of dowry and that the revisionist is a habitual drinker of liquor and he often used to quarrel and harass the opposite party no.2. In order to satisfy the demand of revisionist, the family members of opposite party no.2 have given an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the revisionist and his family members. On 12.03.2018, the opposite party no.2 came to know that there were some documents showing marriage of revisionist with another lady, namely, Poonam Mishra. In that connection, when opposite party no. 2 confronted revisionist, he has abused her and later issued a notice for divorce. Due to harassment meted out by revisionist, the opposite party no.2 came to her parental home and she was deprived from custody of her daughter. She has further alleged that revisionist is working as an officer in Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. in Mumbai and his income is Rs. 60,000/- per month. As the revisionist did not appear and contest the proceedings of case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. and thus, the case was proceeded ex-parte. Thus, there was no material to contradict the version of the opposite party No. 2 / wife.

9. The main grievance of the revisionist is that the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family is excessive and arbitrary and that impugned judgment is ex-parte. As per evidence of opposite party no.2, the revisionist was getting salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month, however the Family Court held the income of revisionist as Rs. 25,000/- per month and granted maintenance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2. So far this argument is concerned that impugned judgment is ex-parte, the revisionist was having opportunity to recall the said judgment by moving an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. but it appears that revisionist did not resort to that remedy thus, the revisionist does not get any benefit on that account.

10. So far quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is well settled that objective of granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage. The factors which would weigh with the court include the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the claimant / wife has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. In this connection a reference may be made to case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 and Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations. The financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, have also to be taken in to consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able- bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan V Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303].

11. Thus, a just balance must be drawn considering all relevant factors. The basic test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic and it should be neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The purpose of the provision is to safeguard the wife from financial suffering due to lack of money.

12. In the instant matter, the opposite party No. 2 / wife has deposed that revisionist is working as an officer in Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. in Mumbai and his income is Rs. 60,000/- per month. However the Family Court held the income of revisionist as Rs. 25,000/- per month and granted maintenance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2/wife has no source of income to maintain herself. It could not be categorically denied that applicant is not working in alleged insurance company. Only a general contention has been raised on behalf of revisionist that the revisionist has already left his job. If he has left his job, he is at liberty to file an application under section 127 CrPC for alteration of maintenance but that general argument can not be a basis to deprive the opposite party No. 2 / wife from just amount of maintenance. The revision has to be decided on the basis of evidence produced by the parties before the Family Court. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that grant of maintenance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 is unjust , excessive or arbitrary. Considering entire facts, it cannot be said that impugned order is suffering from any error of jurisdiction or any such material illegality or perversity, so as to require any interference by this Court. The revision lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

13. The revision is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.2.2025/S Rawat