Allahabad High Court
Sachin Kumar And Another vs Monika Devi on 7 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2840
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5194 of 2024
Revisionist :- Sachin Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- Monika Devi
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sachin Kumar (In-Per
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Sachin Kumar, Revisionist No. 1 appearing in person in this revision.
2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 17.8.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 457 of 2023 (Smt. Monika Devi & Anr. Vs. Sachin Kumar) whereby, in exercise of power under the proviso appended to Section 125 Cr.P.C. interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of the opposite party and interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Revisionist No. 2.
3. It is to be noted, at the very outset, that this Court while entertaining this revision had passed a detailed interim order on 15.10.2024, whereby notice was issued to the opposite party i.e. wife and it had been provided that Revisionist No. 1 shall be liable to pay only total interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party.
4. As per the service report available in the order sheet notice has been served on opposite party but no one is present on her behalf.
5. The Revisionist No. 1 who has appeared in person has argued that the opposite party is living in his house and therefore, it cannot be said that she is not living with Revisionist No. 1 for justifiable reasons.
6. It has further been argued that Revisionist No. 2 who is daughter of Revisionist No. 1 is living with Revisionist No. 1 and is being maintained by him. The Revisionist No. 1 has also argued that he at present is earning only Rs. 14,000/- per month and therefore, the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded in favour of the opposite party and interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded in favour of Revisionist No. 2 is excessive.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by Revisionist No. 1 and I find that proviso appended to Section 125 Cr.P.C. contemplates that the trial court on prima-facie assessment of the over all facts and circumstances of the case can award interim maintenance in favour of the persons claiming the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Revisionist No. 1 has not denied that the opposite party is his legally wedded wife, he has also admitted before this Court that he is earning Rs. 14,000/- per month.
8. Once the marriage of the opposite party with Revisionist No. 1 is admitted and it is also admitted that Revisionist No. 1 is earning Rs. 14,000/- per month and further as on date, there is no evidence on record to show that the opposite party is employed, this Court is of the view that the trial court while awarding interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party has not committed any manifest error of law. Now this Court proceeds to consider, as to whether the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded in favour of the opposite party and the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded in favour of Revisionist No. 2 is adequate and commensurate with the monthly income of Revisionist No. 1 or not.
9. This Court is of the view that once there is no evidence before the trial court in respect of the monthly income of Revisionist No. 1 except his admission that he is earning Rs. 14,000/- per month, the trial court, while awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of opposite party and Revisionist No. 2, has committed error as the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month on the face of record is excessive.
10. This Court while entertaining this revision had passed a detailed order and had directed that Revisionist No. 1 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to opposite party and Revisionist No. 2.
11. This Court is of the view that if a direction is issued to Revisionist No. 1 to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as a composite interim maintenance for the opposite party and Revisionist No. 2, the ends of justice would be served.
12. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.8.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 457 of 2023 (Smt. Monika Devi & Anr. Vs. Sachin Kumar) is hereby modified to the extent that Revisionist No. 1 shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party as a composite interim maintenance for the opposite party and Revisionist No. 2.
13. It is also made clear that this Court in this revision has not adjudicated over the rights of the parties for final maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. therefore, it is open for Revisionist No. 1 and the opposite party to lead their evidence before the trial court to prove their case and the trial court on the basis of the evidence led before it shall decide the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
Gaurav
