Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kavita vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 April, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:64531 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 535 of 2023 Revisionist :- Smt. Kavita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Vikas Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jay Prakash Yadav Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3253 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nishant Kumar Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. S.N. Singh, the learned counsel for revisionist-Smt. Kavita, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Jay Prakash Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 in Criminal Revision No. 535 of 2023 (Smt. Kavita Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
2. I have also heard Mr. Jay Prakash Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. S.N. Singh, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3253 of 2023 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
3. Perused the record.
4. Aforementioned criminal revision and application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed against the same order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.-5, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 192 of 2020 (Smt. Kavita Vs. Rajesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad, whereby Court below has allowed aforementioned complaint case but has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards payment of monthly maintenance in favour of revisionist-Smt. Kavita.
5. The husband Rajesh Kumar has challenged the said order on the ground that the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of his wife Smt. Kavita is not only illegal, harsh but also excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case.The wife has also challenged the said order seeking enhancement in the payment of monthly maintenance.
6. Record shows that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the wife Smt. Kavita on account of she having been neglected by her husband. Accordingly, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 20.02.2020 as filed by revisionist Smt. Kavita against her husband Rajesh Kumar claiming payment of monthly maintenance. The said application came to be registered as Complaint Case No. 192 of 2020 (Smt. Kavita Vs. Rajesh Kumar). Notice was issued to the husband/opposite party-2, who put in appearance and filed his written statement/objections in aforementioned complaint case. Since a serious dispute was raised by the husband qua the claim of his wife regarding payment of monthly maintenance, therefore, the issue as to whether the wife is entitled to payment of monthly maintenance from her husband became a triable issue. Accordingly, the parties went to trial.
7. Court below, in order to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties, framed five issues/points of determination, which are discernible from internal page 3 of the certified copy of the impugned order. The same read as under:- (i) Whether the wife is residing separately from her husband on sufficient ground, (ii) Whether the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself, (iii) Whether the opposite party-2 is a man of sufficient means and can maintain his wife in accordance with his status, (iv) Whether the husband has neglected his wife and therefore, failed to maintain her, (v) Whether the wife is entitled to claim any maintenance from the husband.
8. Upon evaluation and appreciation of the pleadings raised by the parties in the light of the evidence on record. Court below proceeded to decide all the issues as noted above. The said issues were answered in favour of the wife. However, Court below has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of revisionist primarily on the finding that since the children born out of the wedlock of the revisionist and opposite party-2 are residing with the husband, therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- shall be deemed to be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Mr. S.N. Singh, the learned counsel for revisionist has impugned the quantum of maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of revisionist. He contends that by no stretch of imagination, the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below can be said to be just, fair and equitable. Considering the growth in the cost of living and also the rise in the basic price index, he submits that it is unbelievable that a wife can maintain herself on a meagre maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-. As such, the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below is not only irrational, inadequate but also insufficient.
10. It is then contended that opposite party-2 is an able bodied man suffering from no physical disability and coupled with the fact that no evidence was adduced by him with regard to his income/salary nor an affidavit was filed by him before Court below in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court inRajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, therefore, Court below ought to have drawn an adverse inferential finding against opposite party-2 and further conclude that opposite party-2 can earn sufficiently well to not only to maintain himself but also sustain his family. In short, the submission is that the husband on account of above can easily earn the minimum of wages. On the above conspectus, he, therefore, contends that order impugned is liable to be modified and the amount of monthly maintenance awarded by Court below is liable to be enhanced.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. does not oppose the prayer made by Mr. S.N. Singh, the learned counsel for revisionist. However, Mr. Jay Prakash Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 i.e. husband and also the applicant in connected Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. contends that Court below has acted in excess of jurisdiction in even awarding Rs. 2,000/- in favour of wife. He submits that since the children born out of wedlock of revisionist and opposite party-2 are with the husband/father i.e. applicant and are being maintained by him, therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no maintenance was liable to be awarded in favour of wife. Furthermore, considering the precarious condition of the husband, the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below cannot be said to be fair and just but rather irrational and harsh. On the basis of above, he, therefore, vehemently contends that the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of wife is liable to be scaled down by this Court.
12. The Court is faced with a conundrum. On the one hand is the claim of the wife that the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below @ Rs. 2,000/- per month is not only irrational but also inadequate and insufficient inasmuch as, by no stretch of imagination, a lady can maintain herself on monthly payment of Rs. 2,000/- towards maintenance. On the other hand is the liability and obligation of the father/husband towards himself, his family and his two children, who are staying with him. In such circumstance, Apex Court has held that the Court must strike a balance in between conflicting claims of the parties and the amount of maintenance should be such, which should be just, fair and equitable. Considering the aforesaid principle enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that by no stretch of imagination, the amount of monthly maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of the wife can be said to be just and equitable even as per the circumstances relied upon by the husband. Irrespective of the liability and obligation of the husband i.e. opposite party 2, the revisionist cannot be expected to be live a life with dignity, which shall be in consonance with the social and economic status of the husband on a meagre monthly maintenance @ 2,000/- per month.
13. In view of above, the Criminal Revision No. 535 of 2023 (Smt. Kavita Vs. State of U.P. and Another) filed by the wife succeeds and is liable to be allowed, whereas, the prayer prayed for by the applicant i.e. husband by means of Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3253 of 2023 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another) is hereby refused. The application shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.
14. Criminal Revision No. 535 of 2023 (Smt. Kavita Vs. State of U.P. and Another) is, accordingly, allowed.
15. In view of the discussion made above, it is thus provided that the order impugned dated 16.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.-5, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 192 of 2020 (Smt. Kavita Vs. Rajesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad shall stand modified and the opposite party 2 i.e. Rajesh Kumar shall now pay monthly maintenance to the revisionist @ Rs. 5,000/- per month but from the date of this order.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 12.4.2024 Vinay