Advocates:
['KANCHAN CHAUDHARY', '', 'C L CHAUDHARY', 'G A', '', 'RAJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA', 'HAKIM KUMAR KUSHWAHA']

RESERVED

A.F.R.

Court No. - 1

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 510 of 2020

Revisionist :- Smt. Sitara Devi

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Kanchan Chaudhary, C.L.

Chaudhary

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hakim Kumar Kushwaha,

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1.

This criminal revision is directed against an order of Mr.

Dinesh Tiwari, Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi dated

19.10.2019, partly allowing the revisionist’s application for

maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directing the

second opposite party to pay the revisionist maintenance in the

sum of Rs.7000/- per month from the date of order. The

revisionist seeks enhancement of the maintenance awarded,

payable from the date of application.

2.

Heard Mr. C.L. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the

revisionist and Mr. Hakim Kumar Kushwaha, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2.

3.

The revisionist, Smt. Sitara Devi and the second opposite

party, Kamlesh Kumar, are an estranged couple. The parties

were married, according to Hindu rites, on 17^th April, 2009.

There are allegations by the wife that she was subjected to

cruelty, both mental and physical, in connection with demand of

dowry. The details of those facts, that have been wholesomely

set out in the Family Court’s judgment, need not be

recapitulated. The reason is that the Family Court, on the basis

of evidence on record, has recorded a finding of fact that the

wife is living apart from the husband for sufficient cause. It is

the wife who has come up in revision, assailing the judgment

2

and order passed by the Family Court, to the extent it denies

the wife's claim to a maintenance in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- per

month, from the date of application. The husband-opposite

party no.2 has not challenged the order.

4.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist-wife submits that

the maintenance awarded is way below than that necessary to

maintain the standard of living the wife has been accustomed to

in her matrimonial home. Learned Counsel for the revisionist

submitted, during the course of hearing, that the husband is

employed as a Class-IV employee at the Indian Air Force

Station, Bamhrauli, Prayagraj and earns a salary of Rs.50,000/-

per month. The wife is not professionally trained or otherwise

able to earn anything for herself. She is entirely dependent for

her sustenance on her husband. There is also a case about the

second opposite party being possessed of ancestral agricultural

land, which yields a handsome income. His total monthly

earnings from the salary and land put together is claimed to be

a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.

5.

It is further argued by Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel

appearing for the revisionist that maintenance, apart from being

grossly inadequate, judged on the standard parameters, is also

awarded in error from the date of order, instead of the date of

application.

6.

The claim about the agricultural land has been denied by

the husband in paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit, that he

has filed in opposition to the affidavit filed in support of the

revision. It has also been asserted in paragraph no.9 of the

counter affidavit that the second opposite party’s income,

evident from his payslip for the month of February, 2020, is Rs.

24,931/- per month and not Rs. 50,000/- as alleged.

3

7.

This Court has keenly considered the submissions

advanced by the learned Counsel for parties and perused the

record, which has been summoned from the Family Court.

8.

The Family Court, while awarding maintenance, has

proceeded entirely on the basis of parole evidence of the

husband, that he receives a monthly salary of Rs.22,000/-. The

Family Court has not called upon or required the husband to

produce documentary evidence about his monthly emoluments,

which is easy to require production of, and would clinchingly

show the husband’s monthly