Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2689 (ALL)

Balram v. State of U. P.

2015-09-01

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 1.8.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the second to fifth respondents, awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to them from the date of the application i.e. 3.9.2010 upto the date of order and at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month in future. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Auraiya whereby Criminal Revision no. 81 of 2013 has been dismissed and order of the learned Magistrate has been affirmed. 2. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maintenance has been awarded without framing any specific issue regarding the income to the petitioner and also without determining the income of the petitioner. 3. The learned Magistrate has framed issue no. 3 to the effect, as to whether, the second respondent is unable to maintain herself and whether the petitioner is not in a position to pay maintenance to her. While considering the said issue, the learned Magistrate has noticed that the petitioner is employed in a private company and also has agricultural land and thus, is in a position to maintain his wife, the second respondent, his two minor daughters and his minor son. Accordingly, Rs. 1,500/- per month was awarded as maintenance to the second respondent and Rs. 500/- each to respondents no. 3, 4 & 5 i.e. in all a sum of rupees 3,000/- per month from the date of the application until the date of order and Rs. 5,000 per month in future. 4. The revisional court has noticed that the petitioner had refused to maintain respondents no. 2 to 5 without any lawful cause or justification. It has further been held that the daughter of the petitioner, Gayatri is studying in class III, daughter Nancy is studying in class II and son Prince in class VI. The second respondent is residing with her parents and so far the petitioner has not been providing any financial aid to his wife and minor son and daughters for their maintenance and education. It has further been held by the revisional court that assuming the contention of the petitioner that he was earlier employed in a private company on a salary of Rs. It has further been held by the revisional court that assuming the contention of the petitioner that he was earlier employed in a private company on a salary of Rs. 2,600/- per month and had given up that job, to be correct, but he is in a position to earn his livelihood and to maintain his wife and children. Accordingly, the revisional court did not find any illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate awarding maintenance to them. 5. This Court after considering the findings recorded by the courts below does not find any illegality or perversity therein, which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.