Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, J.
Pratima Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.2921, 2922 of 2018
Decided on : 13-01-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Cruelty - Grant of maintenance - Main point argued before this Court is that amount of maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month is very meagre whereas, other side submitted that it is beyond capacity of husband as he is unemployed and not an earning hand - On basis of evidence on record, trial court had adjudicated that husband of revisionist is not doing any service but he has agriculture farming, he is a young man and on basis of daily wage Rs. 200/- per day is Rs.6000/- assessed monthly income of husband and keeping in mind economical and social status of the parties Rs.2,000/- per month awarded as maintenance by husband to wife - Alleged by revisionist that revisionist is working in sewing, embroidering and beauty parlour and earning Rs.5000/- per month. Her father has bigha kheti and is a Postman earning Rs.7000/- per month but such fact was not alleged even in examination-in-chief of revisionist - Revisionist is ready to reside with her husband but husband is not ready to reside with her because she has lodged an FIR under Section 498A IPC against him and his father and in said case, they were detained in jail. Revisionist’s husband is only son of his father.
Finding of the Court: Maintenance is to be paid from the date of application, court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be effective from the date of order, for which reasons need not be recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order. Thus, this Court is of the view that maintenance should be paid from the date of the order not from the date of application - this revisional court is of the opinion that evaluation of finding of the trial court is not suffering from any illegality manifest error. Trial court has not overlooked the grounds of maintenance and evidence, as such, no interference is called for in the impugned order by this revisional court.
Result: Criminal Revisions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. Criminal Revision No. 2921 of 2018 has been preferred against the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Miscellaneous Case No. 220 of 2014 (Pratima Singh Vs. Pankaj Singh @ Dablu Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Kachhawan, District Mirzapur, whereby the learned court has rejected the prayer of revisionist for grant of maintenance of Rs.8000/-per month from opposite party no. 2 and has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/-per month from the date of order.
3. Criminal Revision No. 2922 of 2018 has been preferred against the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Miscellaneous Case No. 220 of 2014 (Pratima Singh Vs. Pankaj Singh @ Dablu Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Kachhawan, District Mirzapur, whereby, the learned trial court has allowed the maintenance of Rs.2000/-per month to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of order.
4. As both the revisions have been preferred against the order dated 18.04.2016, so both the revisions are decided by a common judgment.
5. The main grounds for the Criminal Revision No. 2921 of 2018 is that impugned order is illegal arbitrary and against the evidence on record. Revisionist has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and is totally dependent on her parental family. Opposite Party No. 2 was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing a private job in Delhi. On the basis of surmises and conjectures, trial court has fixed the income of opposite party no. 2 as Rs.6000/-per month. Opposite party no.2 is a graduate and was working in a private job. Notional income of Rs.6000/-per month has been fixed without any basis. No distinction has been drawn in respect of skilled and unskilled labour. Revisionist has always been and presently desirous to live with opposite party no. 2 as his wife and it is opposite party no. 2 who is not willing to keep and maintain the revisionist legally wedded wife. Maintenance amount is too less. Maintenance amount should be enhanced.
6. The main ground for Criminal Revision No. 2922 of 2018 is that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the weight of evidence on record. Revisionist has no source of income and was unable to maintain himself and is totally dependent on his parental family. Learned court below has clearly ignored the fact that opposite party no. 2 was earning Rs.5000/-per month by doing private job as sewing, embroidering and beauty parlour. In her statement admitted by opposite party no. 2 that revisionist is already graduate and unemployed and also stated she had no knowledge regarding income of the revisionist and also stated that she has not filed any case for maintenance, same was not considered by the court below. Income of the revisionist of Rs.6000/- per month fixed is illegally.
7. From the perusal of impugned order, it is admitted fact that Pratima Singh is legally wedded wife of Pankaj Singh.
8. The main point argued before this Court is that amount of maintenance of Rs.2000/-per month is very meagre whereas, the other side submitted that it is beyond the capacity of the husband as he is unemployed and not an earning hand. On the basis of evidence on record, trial court had adjudicated that husband of the revisionist Pratima Singh is not doing any service but he has agriculture farming, he is a young man and on the basis of daily wage Rs. 200/- per day is Rs.6000/- assessed the monthly income of the husband and keeping in mind the economical and social status of the parties Rs.2,000/- per month awarded as maintenance by the husband to the wife. The averment alleged by Pankaj Singh that revisionist is working in sewing, embroidering and beauty parlour and earning Rs.5000/-per month. Her father has 10bighakhtei and is a Postman earning Rs.7000/- per month bu
Section 125(2) Cr.P.C is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence and the social and economic status of the parties in determining maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Maintenance can be capped at 25% of an individual's net income under Section 125 Cr.P.C., considering living costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of provisions related to maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 19....
The court emphasized the financial capacity of the husband and the settled position of law regarding the commencement date of maintenance payments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the maintenance awarded should be just and reasonable, commensurate with the financial status of the husband and the wife's ability to maintai....
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of evaluating evidence in maintenance cases and considering the financial resources of the parties when determining the maintenance amount.
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
