Allahabad High Court
Amardeep Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6358 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1325 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amardeep Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Heard Ms. Vishakha Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. As per officer report dated 3.12.2024, notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2 personally but none appeared on her behalf to press the revision.
3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 5.2.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 15,000/-to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 5000/- as maintenance to her son respondent no.3 from the date of filing application dated 12.3.2021.
4. Heard learned counsel revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is an admitted fact that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 8.11.2019 according to Hindu Rights and Rituals and a son Shivansh born out of their wedlock. She next submitted that the revisionist is posted as a Manager in State Bank of India. He filed his affidavit of assets and liabilities before learned court below which is discussed in paragraph no. 24 of the judgement wherein he has shown his monthly income Rs. 44,000/-. He also stated therein that he had taken personal loan and car loan from Bank towards which he is paying a substantial amount of his salary as installment of loan repayment.
6. The respondent no. 2 is living separately to the the revisionist since 30.6.2020. The respondent no. 2 is well qualified lady and she runs a coaching to teach children by which she earns substantially but revisionist could not find any document in proof of the said fact. The revisionist joined State Bank of India as a Clerk. He was promoted to Scale I in the year 2018 and his total income shown Rs. 10,47,120/- in ITR year 2021-2022. His father was a Loco- pilot. His father and mother both died during Covid outbreak within a short period. She next submitted that learned trial court has awarded maintenance to the applicants without considering financial obligations incurred by the revisionist towards repayment of personal and car loan and amount spent by him during serious disease of his parents.
7. She next submitted that amount awarded in the impugned order deserves to be reduced to some extent in the interest of justice as he is not able to pay the same from his limited salary income. The impugned order is against the instant evidence on record. The respondent no. 2 has been living with her father on her own will. She filed a false case under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against the revisionist in the year 2020 and wants huge some of money to compromise that case.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that revisionist has filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on 10.9.2020 and thereafter she filed an F.I.R. under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act only to exert pressure upon revisionist but revisionist had withdrawn the writ petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act due to undesirable situation created by respondent no. 2 and filed a suit for divorce on 10.7.2021 under setction 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The revisionist is victim of misbehavior and ill-treatment made out to him by respondent no. 2.
9. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submitted that the revisionist is a Bank Manager in State Bank of India and he withdrawn a handsome salary. The amount awarded in the impugned judgement is a fraction of his salaried income and same has been awarded by the learned trial court after thoughtful consideration and the impugned order does not warrants any interference in present criminal revision.
10. Factual matrix of the case in brief are that the respondent no. 2 the original applicant filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned court below on 12.3.2021 with averment that her marriage with opposite party Amardeep Singh was solemnized on 8.11.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her parents spent Rs. 20 lakhs in marriage even by borrowing money from relatives. Her husband was working as a Branch Manager in Bhartiya State Bank. Her husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry received in the marriage and they would often tease her that her parents had given lesser dowry in the marriage and they have insulted her. She was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and harassment due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. She became pregnant in the meanwhile and gave birth to a male child who was named as Shivansh. She was thrown away by the opposite party and his family members on 26.7.2020 after trashing her in which her husband, sister-in-law, her husband and parents in law were involved. She informed her parents about ill treatment but she did not lodged any report with police in hope that matter will be resolved. On 29.6.2022, her brother-in-law(jaith) came to hospital and took her with home on assurance of good treatment to her but when she went at her matrimonial home, the demand of dowry was reiterated and her husband and in-laws restrained her to enter their house unless she took Rs. 10 lakhs with her. She came to her parental home and gave birth to his son Shivansh on 2.9.2020 in Galexy Hospital and the entire expenses was bore by her parents. The applicant claim Rs. 45,000/- as maintenance to herself and minor son who was six months old at the time of filing application.
11. Opposite party had filed written statement before learned court below in which he denied the allegation of demand of dowry but admitted the fact he was posted as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Bulandshahar. He stated that applicant is an educated lady who is capable to maintain herself. He visited to State of Kerala along with his wife after marriage where some confrontation took place between them and the applicant's behavior became arrogant day by day. He tried his best to adjust with her but she did not cooperate. He himself is victim of high handedness and cruel behavior of his wife. The applicant being fed up with ill treatment meted out to him by his wife, filed a suit of divorce. She lodged an FIR against him vide Case Crime No. 170 of 2020 at Mahila Thana in which police tried to compromise the matter at conciliation center at police station.
12. Learned court below framed three issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties during course of hearing, gave finding that this is admitted fact that applicant no. 1 legally wedded wife of opposite party and applicant no. 2 Shivansh born out of their wedlock. Applicant no. 1 is living separately from her husband for proper and sufficient cause, she is not able to maintain herself and minor son whereas opposite party is resourceful person but he is deliberately neglected to his wife and son, the applicants. He is posted as Branch Manager in State Bank of India.
13. With above observations, learned court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 15000/- and Rs. 5000/- per month to the wife and son from the date of filing of application dated 12.3.2021.
14. Perusal of the record shows that both parties have filed their respective affidavits in compliance of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Rajnesh vs. Neha 2021 SC 569. The revisionist has stated in his evidence before the court below that he joined SBI as a Clerk. He was promoted to Scale I in the year 2018 thereafter he entered in Scale II. He is posted as Branch Manager. He has filed salary slip to show his salary. He was posted as Government Servant at the time of marriage. He received house allowance which is shown in salary slip. He has not paid expenses incurred in delivery of his son. He resided with the applicant after marriage till June 2020. His wife did not like to live with her parents. She made not good relations neither with him nor with his parents. He has purchased four wheeler at loan. His ITR 2021-2022 shown his total income Rs. 10,47,120/-. He has not filed ITR of the year 2022-2023. He has shown his monthly income as Rs. 44000/- in his affidavit of assets and liabilities. He has shown his monthly liabilities as Rs. 35,290/- which is including installments of personal loan, car loan and other expenses.
15. A person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his estranged wife, minor child by taking various loans and paying their installments. He has deliberately shown monthly income on lower side in his statement of liabilities. He has shown Rs. 44,000/- in statement of liabilities after deduction of installment of various loans only Rs. 9000/- remains in his hand which is quit unnatural.Learned court below observed in paragraph no. 29 that opposite party has admitted that his net salary after compulsory deduction is Rs. 49,144/-.
16. Finding of fact recorded by learned trial court in impugned judgement is based on judgement on record. It is settled legal position that the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court in proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. by learned trial court as court of first instance, cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless they are based on no evidence in support thereof or they are apparently perverse and this is not a situation in present case. The impugned order is well reasoned and is based appropriate appreciation of evidence on record.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary, 2017 SC 2383 after taking into consideration statutory provisions and placing reliance on earlier judgement in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Another (1970) 3 SCC 129 held that 25% of husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in molding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors.
18. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is quit natural that where wife is also bears the responsibility of maintaining the minor child, the said limit of 25% may be extended because in the case 25% limit was drawn by Hon'ble Apex Court where maintenance was awarded to the wife only. In the present case the applicant includes wife and minor son of the revisionist. Learned court below has assessed the net salary of revisionist Rs. 50,000/- per month, therefore, at least 30% of net salary may be awarded to the applicants as maintenance as he has under obligation to maintain his wife and minor son who were living separately due to sufficient cause.
19. Accordingly, the maintenance awarded in the impugned order is reduced slightly to bring the same within preview of 30% of net salary keeping in view also financial liability incurred by him.
20. The amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 2 is reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- and maintenance awarded to the minor son is reduced Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 4000/-. Thus, the total amount of maintenance is modified to Rs. 17000/- in place of Rs. 20,000/- per month which is payable from date of filing of application as directed in the impugned order.
21. The revision is partly allowed with above modification.
Order Date :- 15.1.2025 SY