Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash Tripathi, J.
Pratima Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2921, 2922 of 2018
Decided On : 13-01-2022
Maintenance - Family Law - Section 125 Cr.P.C - [Section 125 Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the evaluation of maintenance amount, the income of the parties, and the legal provisions related to maintenance. The court emphasized the social and economic status of the parties and the need to consider inflation while determining the maintenance amount. The court also highlighted the limited powers of the revisional court and the importance of evidence in adjudicating maintenance claims.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed two criminal revisions against the order of the Family Court, which rejected the prayer for maintenance of Rs.8000/-per month and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/-per month from the date of the order. The main grounds for the revisions were the alleged illegality and arbitrariness of the impugned order, the income of the parties, and the dependency of the revisionist on her parental family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evaluation of the trial court was not suffering from any illegality or manifest error. It emphasized the importance of evidence and the social and economic status of the parties in determining the maintenance amount. The court concluded that no interference was called for in the impugned order by the revisional court, and both revisions were devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evaluation of maintenance amount, the income of the parties, and the dependency of the revisionist on her parental family. The court also considered the timing of the maintenance application and the payment of maintenance from the date of the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the social and economic status of the parties in determining the maintenance amount. It highlighted the limited powers of the revisional court and the need to consider inflation while adjudicating maintenance claims. The court also discussed the timing of the maintenance application and the payment of maintenance from the date of the order.
Final Decision: Both Criminal Revision No. 2921 of 2018 and Criminal Revision No. 2922 of 2018 were dismissed, and the impugned order dated 18.04.2016 was confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Tripathi, J.
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 10 bigha khtei and is a Postman earning Rs.70
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
