Court No. - 49

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 972 of 2020

Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Sahu

Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Ors.

Counsel for Revisionist :- Shyam Singh Sengar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Ms. Shalu Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and

learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist being

aggrieved of order dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No.105 of

2017 (Smt. Sushila Devi and Others vs. Ashok Kumar Sahu),

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

3. Vide impugned judgment, learned Family Court has awarded

a sum of maintanance @ Rs.2,000/- per child totaling

Rs.6,000/- in favour of minor children till the date of their

attaining majority.

4. Ms. Shalu Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist submits

that the revisionist is a labourer. He has categorically mentioned

in his written statement which was filed before the learned

Family Court that he is not having sufficient means to maintain

his wife and children and in fact wife has captured all of his

ancestral and personal property in the village and she is

deriving benefits from such property. It is submitted that

revisionist is also not liable to pay any maintenance as he has

bone fide doubts as to the paternity to the children, in relation to

which, maintenance has been sought.

5. However, the fact is that revisionist's remedy to challenge the

paternity of the children lies elsewhere and not before this

Court in a criminal revision. In a criminal revision, this Court is

required to see the entitlement of the children to receive

maintenance from their father and whether father has sufficient

means to provide that maintenance or not.

6. There is no whisper of disclosure as to the income of the

revisionist. In his written statement, he has nowhere mentioned

anything about either his vocation or income.

7. Ms. Shalu Singh strenuously submits that he is a labourer

staying away from home. Even if that statement is believed to

be correct, then also the fact is that there is a presumption of a

labourer drawing minimum wages and, therefore, taking four

units to be the part of the family of the revisionist, namely, the

revisionist himself and three minor children, then in view of

minimum wages prevalent and executed by the State

Government, maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per child totaling

Rs.6,000/- for three children cannot be said to be excessive or

arbitrary, there is no illegality in the impugned order calling for

any interference.

8. Therefore, revision fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

Ravi/-