Vishal Saini v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4725 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vishal Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kuamr Yadav,Udai Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated

3.7.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Bareilly in Case No.413 of 2019 (Shiva Saini vs. Vishal Saini), by which application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to wife-opposite party no.2 from the date of application. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that learned Family Court has awarded a very excessive amount of maintenance, without recording any finding with regard to income of the revisionist as also without considering comparative hardship of the revisionist. 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 circumstance. 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 before the court the exact amount of his income and the question of maintenance of wife arises, the presumption would be against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal. Keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, this Court is of the view that maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- per month awarded by the Family Court in favour of opposite party no.2, cannot be said to be excessive. In view of above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. The criminal revision filed by husband is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly. However, it is provided that entire arrears as on date, shall be paid by the revisionist in two equal monthly installments to opposite party no.2, failing which it is open for opposite party no.2 to get the award passed by the learned Family Court executed. Order Date :- 16.12.2023 P.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad