Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 140 of 2023 Revisionist :- Narendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jaysingh Yadav Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Heard Sri Anjeet Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur in Case No.710 of 2019 (Smt. Neelam Vs. Narendra Singh), by which the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to wife/opposite party no.2 from the date of order. 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 learned Family Court without considering the comparative hardship of the revisionist had awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 states that the maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of wife cannot said to be excessive in any manner. It is further submitted that on the request of revisionist the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre High Court, Allahabad 29.3.2023 subject to the condition that the revisionist shall deposit Rs.25,000/- before the Mediation Centre. The revisionist is enjoying the interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 29.3.2023 but has not deposited Rs.25,000/- as directed by this Court. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the wife cannot 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. Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Kpy High Court of Judicature at Allahabad