Chandra Prakash Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3640 of 2023 Revisionist :- Chandra Prakash Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Daya Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Heard Sri Daya Shankar, learned counsel for the revisioist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgement and order dated 09.05.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Jaunpur in Case No.- 33 of 2019 by which the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.c. was allowed and revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is highly excessive and without any basis. It is further submitted that the revisionist is a labourer having no fixed income and the learned Family Court without considering the comparative hardship of revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally married wife of revisionist. The revisionist being husband of opposite party no.2 is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife in any circumstances. The husband cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain his wife. In the present case as the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Now it is the settled position of law that when the husband does not disclose to the court the exact amount of his income and the question of maintenance of wife and children arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of wife cannot be treated to be on higher side rather it is too meagre. In view of above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly. However, it is provided that the entire arrears as on date shall be paid by the revisionist in six monthly installments to the opposite party no.2, failing which the interim protection granted to the revisionist by this Court stands automatically vacated. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Virendra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad