Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2405 (ALL)

RIPUDAMAN SINGH BAGHEL v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-08-14

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 31.7.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra in Case No. 563 of 2006 (Master Manjul @ Mohit and another Vs. Ripudaman Singh Baghel), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra has awarded as interim maintenance Rs.800/- per month to each of the two minor children of the revisionist. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has questioned the correctness, validity and legality of the impugned order dated 31.7.2010 on the ground that the learned court below has not applied its mind to the facts that the mother of the children and wife of the revisionist Smt. Mamta Baghel has left her matrimonial home with two minor children on her own will. The revisionist has filed Case No. 75 of 2003 seeking custody of the children, which is still pending. In the aforesaid case, the wife of the revisionist has stated herself that she has sufficient means to maintain the children, as she is working as a Teacher in the Government School. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that Smt. Mamta Baghel is earning Rs.20,940/- per month as per information furnished under Right to Information Act, hence the learned court below has made a gross illegality while awarding interim maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (both the children). On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that this revision be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer by submitting that the impugned order has been passed at an interim stage of the case whereby only interim maintenance has been awarded to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 during the pendency of the case, hence being an interlocutory order, revision against it, is not maintainable. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the instant revision is without any merit. 2 and 3 during the pendency of the case, hence being an interlocutory order, revision against it, is not maintainable. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the instant revision is without any merit. Learned court below has not awarded any maintenance to the wife keeping in view her independent income, but it has awarded Rs.800/- per month to each child on the ground that the father cannot be absolved of his liability towards his children on the ground that their mother is earning. The impugned order shows that the court below has considered the fact that both the children are aged about 12 and 13 years and are receiving higher education incurring huge expenses. Considering all these facts and the income of the revisionist which according to the court below was about Rs.25,000/-, only Rs.800/- per month was awarded to each of the minor children, which cannot be said as unreasonable. The impugned order has been passed by the lower court after taking into consideration the income, social status and needs of both the parties. There appears no illegality or irregularity in it, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. The revision is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed.