Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gayatri Katiyar vs Yashwant Kumar Katiyar And Another on 7 November, 2019
Author: Harsh Kumar
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 93 of 2012 Revisionist :- Smt. Gayatri Katiyar Opposite Party :- Yashwant Kumar Katiyar And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate connected with Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4966 of 2011 Revisionist :- Yashwant Kumar Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
List revised.
Shri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for revisionist in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2012, is present. No one present is for opposite party no.1, learned A.G.A. for State is present.
In connected Criminal Revision No.4966 of 2011, no one is present for revisionist. Shri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State, are present.
Heard Shri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for revisionist- Smt. Gayatri Katiyar, learned A.G.A. for State in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2012 and perused the record.
The two revisions have been filed against one and the same impugned order dated 29.9.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No.1524 of 2003 allowing application of wife Smt. Gayatri Katiyar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directing her husband Shri Yaswant Kumar Katiyar to make payment of Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to his wife, with effect from 1.12.2003, the date of application.
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the complainant/wife preferred Criminal Revision No.93 of 2012 for enhancement of amount of maintenance while the husband filed Criminal Revision No.4966 of 2011 for rejecting the maintenance application or in the alternative for reducing the amount of maintenance as well as changing the date of its enforcement from 29.9.2011, the date of order in place of 1.12.2003, the date of application.
Learned counsel for revisionist-wife in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2012 contended that it was proved from the evidence on record that opposite party no.2- Shri Yaswant Kumar Katiyar was earning a sum of Rs.15000/- per month and learned Principal Judge, Family Court acted wrongly in holding his monthly income of Rs.5000/-; that since passing of the order during the period of last eight years, the income of opposite party no.2- husband has enhanced manifold, so also the amount of maintenance is Rs.1500/- per month is very low and may not be sufficient for meeting the monthly expenses of revisionist in these days of dearness; that revisionist had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month and the impugned order is liable to be modified by awarding her maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order of maintenance and contended that learned Principal Judge, Family Court has taken into consideration the entire evidence on record and has awarded maintenance proportionate to the income of husband- Yaswant Kumar Katiyar; that learned Principal Judge, Family Court has awarded maintenance from the date of application and the impugned order does not require any interference as to enhancing or decreasing of the monthly maintenance amount; that there is nothing on record to show that since passing of the impugned order, the income of opposite party no.2- Yaswant Kumar Katiyar has enhanced to any extent and so on this ground, the amount of maintenance may not be enhanced; that in any case, if the revisionist finds that income of Yaswant Kumar has risen to any extent, she may claim alteration in maintenance allowance by way of moving application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing learned counsel for revisionist in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2012, learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, I find that learned Principal Judge, Family Court has analyzed the evidence on record with all care and caution and the assessment of maintenance amount made by it may not be considered to be arbitrary or low in view of income of husband- Yaswant Kumar Katiyar assessed by it. Learned counsel for revisionist has failed to show any sufficient ground for setting it aside the impugned order or interfering with it by enhancing the amount of maintenance. There is absolutely no ground for reducing the amount of maintenance also.
Both the revisions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
Both the revisions are dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly for necessary action, if any.
Interim order, if any stands vacated.
Order Date :- 7.11.2019 Anil K. Sharma