Court No. - 93

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5178 of 2022

Revisionist :- Smt. Depti And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- J.P. Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Pratap Singh

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Dharmendra

Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for

the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated

09.09.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar in

Criminal Misc. No.527 of 2013 "Smt. Depti and Others vs. Rajnish Dwivedi"

under section- 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionists have been awarded the

maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- for the wife and Rs.1500/- for each of the

kids.

3. The only contention of the revisionists is that amount of Rs.3,000/- fixed as

maintenance for the wife and Rs.1500/- each for the kids totaling amount

Rs.5,000/- per month is quite meager considering the needs of the revisionists

and that the opposite party no.2 is earning 80-90 thousand per month.

4. The opposite party on the other hand, has drawn attention of the Court

towards the finding given in the judgement that opposite party no.2 is earning

by doing physical labour only. The contention of the revisionist has been

opposed on the ground that the revisionists-applicants failed to furnish any

material on record that her husband has been earning rupees 80-90 thousand

per month. It is further contended that he is earning Rs.5,000/- per month by

working as a private driver.

5. I perused the impugned judgement and the other material on record. It

appears that the witness- employer of the opposite party came in the witness

box and deposed that Rajnish Dwivedi- the opposite party no.2 is working for

him as driver and he is being paid Rs.5,000/- per month by him. He has

further stated that he calls him for driving his car whenever required and then

he pays to him at the rate of Rs.300/- per day. The learned trial court

considered the guidelines framed in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, (2021)

2 SCC 324, and drew a conclusion that there was nothing on record to show

that he was earning quite a large amount from different sources. The trial

court cannot give a finding on the basis of unsubstantiated pleas. The trial

court is not allowed to draw conclusions on the basis of guess work and has to

give a finding on the basis of proof only. The Family Court relied upon the

fact that he is a healthy man and has been earning by doing a job as a private

driver and thereafter decided the quantum of maintenance.

6. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order. The law as laid

down in Rajnish vs. Neha and Another (supra) has been correctly applied.

Hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.5.2023/Saif

Digitally signed by :-

SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad