Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Samit Gopal, J.
Mool Chandra – Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1156 of 2017
Decided On : 03-02-2021
Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 125, 127 – Maintenance – Present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda in Case under Section 127 Cr.P.C., by which, the court concern has allowed the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/-per month to the opposite party no.2 Smt. Meena Devi and Rs. 2,000/-per month each to the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.4 from the date of the order. – It has been further directed that the said amount shall be paid by 10th of every month to them.
Finding of the court: Fact that the revisionist is employed and was getting a salary of Rs. 15,938/-after the necessary deductions which was paid to him in October, 2014 is not denied. – Even the fact that after the payment in October, 2014, the revisionist was entitled to enhanced payment on the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission is also not denied. – In the cross examination of the revisionist he had stated to be receiving about Rs. 17,000/-per month as his salary - Ailment which is being taken by the revisionist and is stated to be one of the factors of too much expenditure is a common and a regular ailment and apparently there is no proof of the same being a serious ailment. – Daughters of the revisionist are stated to be grown up children as per the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the revisionist himself in the year 2012, in which, it is stated that he started living in Kanpur after joining his services in the year 2003 after which one daughter was born who was about 10-11 years old and later on another daughter was born who is aged about 7 years and as such they are of the age of school going children. – Fact of rise in inflation, cost of living and also taking into consideration the salary of the revisionist which keeps on increasing every year by way of dearness allowance, increment etc. cannot be ignored. – Relevant factors for determining the quantum of maintenance in the light of the legal principles laid by the Apex Court and the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance as awarded is appropriate and there is no irregularity and illegality in the order impugned.
Result: Revision Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Samit Gopal, J.
1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Achyutanand Pandey, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda in Case No. 110/11 of 2014 (Smt. Meena Devi and others Vs. Mool Chandra) under Section 127 Cr.P.C., by which, the court concern has allowed the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/-per month to the opposite party no.2 Smt. Meena Devi and Rs. 2,000/-per month each to the opposite party no.3 Kumari Anju and opposite party no.4 Kumari Mansi from the date of the order. It has been further directed that the said amount shall be paid by 10th of every month to them.
3. The facts of the present case are that the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the revisionist who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 Smt. Meena Devi and the father of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Kumari Anju and Kumari Mansi which was decided vide order dated 05.01.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 604/IX of 2010 (Smt. Meena Devi & others Vs. Mool Chandra) by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Baberu, District Banda, by which, the said application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the opposite party therein who is the revisionist in the present revision was directed to pay by the 10th of every month Rs. 1,000/-to Smt. Meena Devi and Rs. 750/-each to Kumari Anju and Kumari Mansi.
4. Subsequently, an application dated 26.06.2013 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 with the prayer that the applicant no.1 Smt. Meena Devi be paid Rs. 2,000/-per month and the applicant nos. 2 and 3 Kumari Anju and Kumari Mansi be paid Rs. 1,500/-each per month from respondent Mool Chandra who is the revisionist herein. During pendency of the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. further an application dated 15.09.2015 was filed by the wife and daughters of the revisionist with the prayer that the amount of maintenance be enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- each to the said persons.
5. The court concerned vide the impugned order allowed the application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 08.02.2017 and enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/-to Rs. 4,000/-to be paid to Smt. Meena Devi, the wife of the revisionist and from Rs. 750/-to Rs. 2,000/-each to the daughters of the revisionist, namely, Kumari Anju and Kumari Mansi from the date of the order.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below erred in law in enhancing the amount of maintenance without any basis and even failed to consider the fact that the revisionist was working as a sweeper who had taken a loan from the department, from co-workers and from the bank and is also suffering from diabetes and thyroid and as such is himself spending a handsome amount of money from his salary for repayment of the loans and for his illness and without considering the same, the maintenance as awarded has been enhanced. It is further argued that Smt. Meena Devi the wife of the revisionist is working in private hospitals as a sweeper and earning Rs. 10,000/-per month and the said fact has not been considered and ignored by the court concerned while enhancing the amount of maintenance. It is thus argued that the order impugned enhancing the amount of maintenance is irrational and has not considered the important aspects of the matter and thereby the amount of maintenance has been enhanced without any basis and sufficient reason.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA argued that the order impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or illegal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
