Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 409 (ALL)

RAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. UMA DEVI

2017-02-03

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2017
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjiv Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the then learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 389 of 2006 (Smt. Uma Devi Srivastava and Master Vinay Kumar vs. Rajkumar Srivastava) under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the aforementioned judgment and order on the point of quantum of the maintenance allowance awarded to the opposite parties. It has been impressed upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the revisionist was unemployed and he was pursuing the various computer courses and also studying the law course. Later on, the revisionist was enrolled as a junior Advocate. But, due to paucity of funds, it would be too harsh upon the revisionist to pay such huge maintenance amount. The only prayer which has been insisted by the learned counsel for the revisionist is for the reduction of the already awarded maintenance allowance. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently controverted the averments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and has argued that the very foundation of this nuptial knot was laid on fraudulent and deceiving devices. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.1 was solemnized upon an advertisement which was full of lies. 5. It was next submitted that since it has not been assailed by the revisionist that the impugned judgment and order is based upon the perverse findings, in such case, the present revision is not maintainable. It was further submitted that the revisionist has enough income in his legal practice and the revisionist has also supporting income from the computer works. In the aforesaid circumstances, the maintenance allowance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad is appropriate. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following ruling of the Supreme Court:- (i). Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 Whereas, learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the following rulings:- (i). Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 (ii). 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following ruling of the Supreme Court:- (i). Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 Whereas, learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the following rulings:- (i). Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 (ii). Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others (2015) 6 SCC 353 (iii). Basant Lal vs. The State of U.P. and others 1996 CRI.L.J. 69 7. This revision is pending at the stage of admission. While arguing this case, it has also been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance allowance allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2012 has been reduced by this Court by it's orders dated 12.12.2012 and 21.12.2012 to which learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has raised an objection and stated that these orders were passed as an ex-parte orders. It would not be out of place to mention here that orders dated 12.12.2012 and 21.12.2012 are the orders which have been passed as interim measure to provide financial assistance to the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 which are in the letter and spirit of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others (2015) 6 SCC 353 . 8. This delay of adjudication would have enhanced the sufferings of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 unless this Court would have not protected their existence for livelihood and the orders dated 12.12.2012 and 21.12.2012 would not have been passed. 9. Once the wife alongwith her child or children leaves the matrimonial home, she is left to the extreme vagrancy. It is not only but also the moral duty of the Courts to protect the interest of a destitute child as well as his or her mother. The wife who has been denied the marital status may not be left to lurches. The basic concept of sustenance does not mean the mere and meagre living but living with dignity that the wife and her child or children were enjoying before they are deprived from the aegis or protection of the family. A husband who is able-bodied person has sacrosanct duty to provide maintenance to his wife even by a physical labour unless the maintenance has been denied to the wife by the Court. 10. A husband who is able-bodied person has sacrosanct duty to provide maintenance to his wife even by a physical labour unless the maintenance has been denied to the wife by the Court. 10. A young woman who leaves her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provisions under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 becomes a damsel in distress. 11. The solemn pledge and the vows which were vouched for by the husband to maintain his wife; at the time of marriage ceremony must be abided, preserved with pious pledge and it is the moral as well as legal obligation of the husband to prevent such type of exigency which may result that his wife does not become vagabond or pauper; unless there is no order from the Court for the wife to get maintenance allowance from the husband. 12. In the present case, first order was passed on date 12.12.2012 since then this case is dragging at a snail's pace. The interim orders which were passed on dates 12.12.2012 and 21.12.2012 respectively, were primordial measures to protect the financial interest of the wife and her son. 13. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2012 has been recorded after marshalling oral as well as documentary evidences of either side. Undoubtedly, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2012 has been passed on merits. 14. I do not find any illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 15. The revision sans merit and is dismissed on merits at the admission stage itself.