Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 809 (ALL)

Sachin Kumar v. State of U. P.

2021-08-05

RAJEEV MISRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Rajeev Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Deshraj Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. 2. This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging order dated 3.3.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha in Complaint Case No. 72 of 2020 (Smt. Varsha and others Vs. Sachin Kumar), under section 125 Cr. P. C., P.S. Amroha Dehat, District Amorha, whereby Court below has awarded interim maintenance in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3, at the rate of Rs.8000/-per month and Rs. 3000/-per month respectively. 3. Record shows that opposite party No. 2 for herself and on behalf of her minor son Vanshu filed a Complaint Case under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Complainant alleged that her marriage with applicant was solemnized on 12.2.2016 in accordance Hindu Rites and Customs. From the wedlock of opposite party 2 and applicant, a son Vanshu was born. However, applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the jewellery and goods brought by opposite party 2 upon her marriage with applicant. They continuously demanded additional dowry, which was a four wheeler. As demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled, opposite party 2 along with her minor son is alleged to has been ousted from the house of applicant on 19.11.2018. Opposite party 2 further alleges that she does not have sufficient means to even sustain herself. On account of despair and destitution faced by her, she prayed that maintenance be awarded to her at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-per month. Along with the complaint, opposite party 2 also filed an application for interim maintenance praying therein that during pendency of complaint case, interim maintenance be paid to them. 4. Application for interim maintenance filed by opposite parties 2 and 3 appears to have been contested by applicant. Applicant showed his readiness and willingness to take home opposite party 2 and his minor son. He further admitted that opposite party 2 is legally wedded wife and the minor son Vanshu was born from wedlock of applicant and opposite party 2. However, other allegations made in the complaint were denied. Applicant specifically stated before Court below that he does not have his own independent income and therefore, amount of maintenance prayed by opposite party 2 along with opposite party 3 cannot be paid by applicant. 5. However, other allegations made in the complaint were denied. Applicant specifically stated before Court below that he does not have his own independent income and therefore, amount of maintenance prayed by opposite party 2 along with opposite party 3 cannot be paid by applicant. 5. Court below considering the pleadings of the parties and on basis thereof partly allowed application for interim maintenance, vide order dated 3.3.2021. Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/-per month towards interim maintenance in favour of opposite party 2 and a sum of Rs. 3,000/-towards interim maintenance in favour of minor son i.e. opposite party 3. 6. Perusal of impugned order dated 3.3.2021 goes to show that father of applicant in the letter written by him has himself admitted that income of applicant is Rs.60,000-70,000/-per month. It is further admitted that Firm namely Sachin Medical is being operated by applicant. Opposite party 2 Varsha is legally wedded wife of applicant and Vanshu minor son was born out of their wedlock. Consequently, opposite parties 2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance which commensurates with the status of applicant. 7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. A definite finding regarding source of income as well as income of applicant has not been recorded by Court below. As applicant is unemployed and having no source of income, amount of interim maintenance awarded by Court below is arbitrary and harsh. It is thus urged that order impugned in present application is liable to be quashed by this Court. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that it is an undisputed position that opposite party 2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant. Opposite party 3 is minor son of the parties who was born from the wedlock of applicant and opposite party 2. As such, applicant being the husband and father of opposite parties 2 and 3 is legally and morally bound to maintain them. However, applicant has miserably failed to discharge his legal and moral obligation. Learned A.G.A. further contends that opposite party 2 wife of applicant along with her minor son has been residing separately since 19.11.2018. However, there is nothing on record to show that applicant has been maintaining his wife and minor son i.e. opposite parties 2 and 3 ever since then. Learned A.G.A. further contends that opposite party 2 wife of applicant along with her minor son has been residing separately since 19.11.2018. However, there is nothing on record to show that applicant has been maintaining his wife and minor son i.e. opposite parties 2 and 3 ever since then. With regard to income, learned A.G.A. contends that Court below has relied upon the letter written by father of applicant which has not been disputed by applicant before Court below or before this Court. As such, amount of interim maintenance awarded by Court below is just and proper. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 9. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that by means of order impugned in present application, Court below has only made interim arrangement. Parties have sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective case before Court below. In view of admitted position that opposite party 2 is legally wedded wife of applicant and opposite party 3 Vanshu was born from the wedlock of applicant and opposite party 2, therefore, applicant is legally and morally bound to maintain opposite parties 2 and 3. There is nothing on record to show that applicant has been maintaining opposite parties 2 and 3 since 19.11.2018 i.e. the date on which opposite party along with her minor son was ousted from her marital home. Consequently, no illegality has been committed by Court below in awarding interim maintenance in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3 from the date of application. View taken by Court below is in consonance with judgement of Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 , wherein Apex Court has held that maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application. The Court further finds that Court below has relied upon the letter written by father of applicant for calculating the approximate income of applicant. There is nothing on record to show that same was disputed by applicant before Court below. Moreover, in the affidavit filed in support of present application, which runs into as many as 22 paragraphs, there is no denial of same. Consequently, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. 10. There is nothing on record to show that same was disputed by applicant before Court below. Moreover, in the affidavit filed in support of present application, which runs into as many as 22 paragraphs, there is no denial of same. Consequently, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. 10. In view of discussion made above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in present application. Application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is, accordingly, dismissed.