Allahabad High Court
Aryaman Chopra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:95421
Reserved on 09.05.2025
Delivered on 05.06.2025
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4964 of 2019
Revisionist :- Aryaman Chopra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anuj Bajpai,G.A.,Ishir Sripat,Siddharth Agrawal
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist Aryaman Chopra through his natural guardian/mother Smt. Anamika Chopra against judgment and order dated 21.11.2019 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Gautam Budh Nagar in Maintenance Case No.374 of 2013, Aryaman Chopra Vs. Sri Gaurav Mehta, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Sector, 20, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar, with prayer to enhance the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the revisionist by the learned court below. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard submissions of Smt. Anamika Chopra, appearing in person for the revisionist, counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that revisionist had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month before the Court of Civil Judge, Family Court (JD), Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida on 11.09.2009, which was earlier registered as Misc. Application No.50 of 2009. During the pendency of said application, the Family Court established in the District and the case was transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar and where it was registered as Case No.374 of 2013, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The maintenance application was filed by the applicant who was minor, through his mother and guardian Smt. Anamika Chopra. It is alleged in the said application that revisionist is minor, he was born on 27.12.2004 out of wedlock of his father Gaurav Mehta and mother Smt. Anamika Chopa. Due to certain differences between the parents of the revisionist. Both of them decided to dissolve their marriage which was solemnized on 27.02.2004 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Right from the birth of applicant remained under the care and custody of his mother and even at the time of filing of application for maintenance on 11.09.2009 he lived alongwith his mother at the place of his maternal grand parents at Noida. The decree of divorce was granted by the competent Court by mutual consent and the marriage of the mother of the applicant and opposite party who is his father dissolved under Section 13(b) (II) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of District Judge, New Delhi in 2007. In the divorce petition on mutual consent, it was mutually agreed that the parties would get separated. However, the custody of the applicant would remain with the mother. The father was given visitation right and he could visit the applicant once in a month. After hearing the parties and learned District Judge, New Delhi vide order dated 08.12.2007 passed decree of divorce by mutual consent and a copy thereof has been filed as Annexure No.C to affidavit accompanying the revision.
4. The maternal grand parents of the applicants are senior citizens and his maternal grand-father retired as Lieutenant Colonel from Indian Arma as early as in the year 1992 and since then he was dependent on its pension from the Government. The father of the applicant never visited the applicant even after getting visitation right in the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2007. The respondent never took care of the applicant, ever since his parents got separated, he has not supported the applicant in any manner and he is solely dependent upon his mother. The father of the applicant is working as as Deputy General Manager, Corporate, in HR Department of Reliance Infrastructure in Bombay with annual package of Rs.20 Lakhs which comes roughly Rs.1,67,000/- per month. He has no financial liability either towards his parents or any other member of his family, because the parents of the respondents are gainfully employed and his younger brother is an Officer in Indian Army. Therefore, the respondent has no liability to maintain anyone except the applicant. The mother of the applicant is employed with IGA "Inter Globe" Air Transport with monthly income varies from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month, depending upon the number of flights which are assigned to her in a month. The mother of the applicant got him admitted in KG-1 class in Kothari International School, Noida and paid Rs.57,800/- towards admission and collateral fees. True copy of the receipt has been filed as Annexure No.D to the present revision.
5. Thus, the mother of the applicant had to bear Rs.17,000/- per month as monthly expenditure to the applicant, she also arranged a maid to look after him and to do day today household work as and when she was not available at home due to her professional engagements. She used to take him for outing, eating points and bring toys, story books, games etc. He also joined classes for extra curricular activities in the evening. The mother of the applicant also took him to the place of his aunt at Hong Kong. The respondent never took care of the applicant and in recent years he even never bothered to visit him. He earns five times more than the mother of the applicant, he is bound to contribute for maintenance in that proportion i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month. As the genuine total expenditure of the applicant is Rs.17,000/- per month.
6. During the pendency of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the applicant moved an application under Section 125 Cr.PC. Bearing date 14.09.2016 before the court below with prayer to direct the respondent to pay rupees 70% of his income towards maintenance of the petitioner as he has willfully neglected to maintain the applicant who is a son. The applicant is entitled to receive maintenance commensurate to the income, status and life style of the respondent father. At the time of filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the applicant was studying in Class VIIth in Kothari International School and his annual school fee is approximately Rs.02,04,000/-. The income of the respondent increased substantially since 2009 when application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved and according to liable sources his income was not less than Rs.50 lakh per annum. Apart from serving in Reliance Infrastructure, he was also working in Executive Learning Division of SEEDS Education E-139, East Kailash New Delhi as Faculty. He also works as a Visiting Faculty with Great Lakes, Institute of Management. He has received higher education in business Management at Indian Institute of Management, Kozicode and BA from University of Hudders Field. On filing of the original petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2009, learned Civil Judge, summoned opposite party who appeared and filed his written statement 7B, in which he stated that the name of the child born out of his wedlock with his mother Anamika Chopra was Abhimanyu Mehta, but his mother has changed his name as Aryaman Chopra without any legal right. She changed the name of his son only to give pain to him and subsequently got married with her boy friend and gave her surname to his son and thus she ended the paternal right of opposite party regarding his son. He was never permitted by the applicant and her parents to meet his son, which is contempt of court's order. The mother of the applicant resides at her parental place, her father is a retired Army Officer and he receives free medical service and a good pension. Therefore, the mother of the applicant has not to bear economic needs of her parents. It is also wrong to say that the opposite party gets Rs.20 lakh annually from his office as Deputy General Manager in Reliance Infrastructure and in fact, his average annual package is Rs.3 lakh, he has taken various educational, personal and vehicle loan around Rs.5 lakh. The applicant herself earns around Rs.75,000/- per month from various sources from her employment. Apart from that, she also earns extra income from modelling assignment and getting commission from sale of goods. Thus, her over all income is more than Rs.1 lakh per month. She visits Foreign Countries in connectin with her job in Airlines, every month, for a period of 15 to 20 days and leave the child in the custody of her parents.
7. Both the parties had filed documentary evidence in support of their pleadings. The applicant appeared as witness in alleged evidence where she was examined and cross-examined. Opposite party filed his affidavit evidence, but did not turn up for cross-examination. Therefore, her evidence is in complete for want of cross-examination.
8. Learned court below awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.12,000/- per month to the applicant on 07.01.2016.
9. Learned court below after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of their pleadings gave a finding that this is admitted fact that the mother of the applicant Anamika Chopra was married with opposite party Gaurav Mehta and the applicant born out of their wedlock on 27.12.2004. The parents of the applicant obtained divorce by a mutual consent due to matrimonial discord occurred between them and decree of divorce was passed by a Court in New Delhi on 08.12.2007. The opposite party was given visitation right of the child once in a month. The allegation of the opposite party that by changing the name and surname of the child, the mother of the applicant gave him serious mental and physical torture is not acceptable, as in divorce petition under Section 13 B filed by the parties before Delhi Court in paragraph No.11 and 12 the opposite party had given his consent for change of name of the son from Abhimanyu Mehta to
Aryaman Chopra.
10. Learned court below has also given a finding that monthly income of the applicant's mother is around Rs.2 lakh from all sources, she has filed her income tax return from the year 2008-09 to 2019-2020. The annual fees of the applicant was Rs.2,57,600/- in the year 2019-20, which is increasing expediently from year to year.
11. From perusal of salary slip of opposite party No.3 from April 2019 to September, 2019 his current salaried monthly income appears to be Rs.3,68,844/-, he also gets Rs.8 lakh as annual bonus, thus his monthly income is around Rs.4,50,000/-. Thus, he is possessed of sufficient income to maintain his son and bear his necessary expenses. The opposite party being father of the child, the applicant, is under obligation to pay for his maintenance. As the applicant has claimed Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance in maintenance petition, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing of application onwards upto attainment of his majority. The maintenance will be payable on 7th of each calendar month and no amount towards maintenance was liable to be adjusted.
12. So far as, the question that the family court has awarded maximum amount claimed in maintenance petition by the applicant, which was originally filed in 2009 and the court was not competent to award more than the amount claimed in maintenance petition is concerned. This argument raised on behalf of respondent No.2 is not tenable. Court below has observed that in Income Tax Return of the year 2010-11 the gross income of the respondent No.2 was Rs.9,23,703/-, whereas in the ITR of 2019-20 the gross income was Rs.38,19,343/-. Therefore, even according to income tax return of the respondent No.2 his income increased more than four times during the period of filing of maintenance petition and passing of impugned judgment and order.
13. Learned trial court has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that according to Income Tax Return of the opposite opposite party for the financial year 2019-20 his monthly salaried income can be computed as Rs.3,68,844/ per month. He also gets Rs.8 lakh as annual bonus and accordingly his current income is Rs.4,50,000/- per month and therefore, he is possessed of sufficient means of income and he is able to provide maintenance to his son according to his status which he lives. In a recent judgment in Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No.1165 of 2010 Smt. Deepa And Anr. vs Harish Railwani placing reliance on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amarjeet Singh Vs. Pushpa Devi 2015 SCC Online Punjab and Haryana 1405 held that in changed circumstances, the applicants have been rightly awarded maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C., more than claimed amount. The relevant portion of ratio of judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amarjeet Singh Vs. Pushpa Devi (supra) may reproduced as under:-
" 24. .........Now the question which requires determination is whether the Magistrate is competent to award maintenance more than the amount claimed by the petitioner in the application, Section 125 Cr. P.C. provides that a Court may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Court thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Court may from time to time direct. Under this provision, it is the duty of the Court to provide just maintenance to the deserted wife or destitute child. The amount of maintenance should be such that a wife is able to maintain herself decently and with dignity. If after considering the material placed before the Court, the Court thinks that a particular amount is a reasonable amount, he is required to award the said amount as maintenance, and in my opinion, he cannot refuse to grant the said amount merely because the claimant has not claimed such an amount in her application. Once the legislation has cast duty on the Court to award just and reasonable amount of maintenance in the facts and circumstances of a case, the same cannot be denied on mere technicalities i.e. the claimants had not claimed the said amount in their application. Once discretion has been given to the Court to award an amount of maintenance, it will always be just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of a case. There is no specific restriction under Section 125 Cr. P.C. that the Court cannot award more than the amount claimed in the petition. Rather a duty has been imposed on the Court to award compensation which he thinks fit. In such situation, the Court is not debarred from awarding compensation exceeding the claimed amount."
14. Revisionist's mother Mrs. Anamika Chopra who is also an Advocate while appearing in person submitted that at present she is practising as an Advocate, and she has left her earlier job assignment. Although her son Aryaman Chopra has attained the age of majority in December, 2022 yet he is receiving eduction in the University of Toranto (Canada). She has got a Special Power of Attorney executed on behalf of the applicant, who is her son to prosecute this case on his behalf, as he stays out of country to pursue his education. She has also stated that account invoice of his academic fees in the University of Toranto has been filed as annexure No.14 to the supplementary affidavit, in which his current session tuition charges are shows as Rs.77,084.69/-$ for academic session 2024-25. She prayed that the maintenance amount should be awarded to the applicant up to period of completion of his academic course, which he is pursuing in University of Toranto (Canada), because huge expenditure is involved in the course. Respondent No.2 has stopped even the payment of above Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the revisionist after he attained the age of majority. She has reduced to a bankruptcy while bearing high academic expenses of her son, the revisionist.
15. Learned pleader of the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrashekar Vs. Swapnil and another in Criminal Appeal Nos. 265-266 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 3537-3538 of 2020). Wherein it is noticeable that Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to extend the period for maintenance to the son of the appellant beyond his attainment of age of majority in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
16. Learned pleader of the revisionist further placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pravin Kumar Jain Vs. Anju Jain in Civil Appeal Nos. Nil of 2024, arising out of SLP ( C) Nos.21710-21711 of 2024). Wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted amount of Rs.1 Crore towards maintenance and care of the son as lump-sum payment in a proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein pendente lite maintenance was claimed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted that amount so that the son could utilize the same for his higher education and as security till he became finally independent. This order was also passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is exclusive to Apex Court.
17. She next submitted that respondent No.2, being father of the applicant is a very affluent person, having possessed of sufficient means to provide and pay for all necessary expenses of the applicant, and cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain him, although he has attained majority in the year 2022. But the studies are still continuing at present and therefore, the applicant deserves a reasonable, just and fair maintenance from his father, respondent No.2. She laid emphasis on order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court in present Revision on 30.09.2024 which is reproduced as under:-
"1-Pursuant to order of this Court dated 23.09.2024, Mrs. Anamika Chopra (mother of the revisionist-Aryaman Chopra) and the opposite party no. 2-Mr. Gaurav Mehta (father of Aryaman Chopra) are personally present before this Court for the purpose of amicable settlement of this case.
2-After having interaction with each other, opposite party no. 2 submits that his divorce took place on 06.12.2007. As per his income, as disclosed in Income Tax Return since Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 to Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, he earned Rs. 4,25,28,677/- and during the said period, income of Mrs. Anamika Chopra (mother of Aryaman Chopra) was Rs. 2,12,12,243/-. He further submits that after necessary deduction of about 35% income tax, the actual amount which came to his hand is Rs. 2,76,43,641/-. He next submits that he has also liability to maintain his second wife and daughter. For the sake of settlement only, he further submits that if his income is divided in four equal parts, then 25% of his remaining income comes about a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/-. He next submits that as per order dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 374 of 2013, maintenance amount @ Rs. 15,000/- per month was granted to the revisionist (Aryaman Chopra) from the date of application i.e. 11.09.2009 till the date the revisionist attains majority i.e. December, 2022, which comes total Rs. 24,00,000/- and the same has already been paid by him. He next submits that though the revisionist is a Director in ARSACE Pvt. Ltd., registered address 1120, Sector 29, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar having Director Identification Number (DIN) as 10146114, hence legally he is not entitled for any further maintenance, however, with a view to get all the litigation ended, still he is ready to settle the dispute in case the mother of the revisionist accepts remaining amount of Rs. 46,00,000/- in easy installments.
3-On the other hand, Mrs. Anamika Chopra (mother of the revisionist) submits that she is not willing to make any settlement on the aforesaid amount offered by opposite party no. 2, however, she does not dispute the above noted income of herself as well as opposite party no. 2. She further submits that since Aryaman Chopra (revisionist) is presently pursuing his graduation course in Life Science from University of Toronto, Canada, therefore, his expenses of education and accommodation, etc. for remaining three semesters are still to be paid which amounts to Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and if the opposite party no. 2 pays the aforesaid amount, only then she will agree for the settlement otherwise she will contest the matter on merits.
4-In view of the conflicting views as noted above, amicable settlement between the parties concerned failed.
5-Let the matter be listed before the appropriate Bench on 04.11.2024 for hearing on its merit."
18. She also stated that during the pendency of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She had filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on 14.09.2016 praying for enhanced maintenance, but same has not been considered by the learned court below. In said application she stated that during the period 11.09.2009 to 14.09.2016 the income of her Ex-husband Gaurav Mehta enhanced manifold, at present his annual salary package was Rs.20 lakh, which comes around Rs.1,67,000/ per month. But the learned court below has not paid any heed to this application dated 14.09.2016 and has awarded maintenance on the basis of prayer made in original application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed in the year 2009. In Income Tax Return of Assessment year 2022-23 his gross salaried income is shown as Rs.4,25,28,677/-. However, he has underplayed his income in ITR's. This amount have increased in present financial year.
19. In present case no prayer has been made in pleadings of revision for payment of post attainment of majority maintenance to the revisionist.
20. From perusal of material on record in which the large number of documents are annexed in support of the claim of the revisionist regarding grant of enhanced maintenance and his academic expenses, and keeping in view huge salary package of respondent No.2 which is keep on increasing from year to year, I am of the considered opinion that applicant is entitled to seek maintenance from respondent No.2 according to his need, heavy academic expenses incurred due to his studies abroad, family background his both parents and the fact that both of the parents have been living a decent and dignified life style, the applicant is entitled to receive maintenance according to his needs, his educational qualification and personal needs commensurate to income of his father which is many times higher than the income of the mother, as the responsibility of a parent to maintain his/her minor child is unqualified and without any exception. Therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded against the respondent No.2 in the impugned judgment and order is enhanced in following manner:-
(i) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing of application dated 11.09.2009 to 14.09.2016 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from 15.09.2016 to date of impugned judgment dated 21.11.1019, and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per month till the date of attainment of his majority. The amount deposited/paid by the applicant towards maintenance/interim maintenance to the revisionist shall be liable to be adjusted towards arrears of maintenance.
21. The revision stands partly allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 05.6.2025
Ashish/-
