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

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4517 of 2023 Revisionist :- Divan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Heard Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Case No.261 of 2020 (Smt. Poonam @ Neelam Vs. Divan Singh), by which application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Family Court without recording any finding in respect of income of the revisionist has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that learned Family Court also erred in awarding maintenance without considering the comparative hardship of revisionist. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned Trial Court has assessed the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.12,000/- per month and has awarded Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife which cannot said to be excessive in any manner. 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.4,000/- 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. However, it is provided that revisionist shall pay the entire arrears as on date in six equal monthly instalments to the opposite party no.2, failing which it is open to opposite party no.2 to initiate recovery proceedings against the revisionist. Order Date :- 4.12.2023 Kpy High Court of Judicature at Allahabad