Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 73 (ALL)

Naresh Raikwar v. State of U. P.

2022-01-17

UMESH KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.-opposite party no.1 virtually and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against judgement and order dated 26.08.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No.196 of 2019, C.N.R. No.UPJS02000827-2019, J.O. No.UP05939 (Smt. Neha Versus Naresh Raikwar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Babina, District Jhansi, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs.6,000/-per month from the date of application i.e.10.04.2019. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that without taking the evidence of revisionist and without considering the case of revisionist, the trial court has granted the maintenance allowance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application which is totally unjust, improper and illegal. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner and no such judicial mind was applied while passing impugned order and nothing has been considered as evidence adduced by the revisionist, Naresh Raikwar, husband of opposite party no.2. The maintenance allowance awarded by the Additional Principal Judge is, too, excessive, illegal, arbitrary and against weight of evidence on record and the same may be set aside by this Court. 4. It is pointed out by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that looking to exorbitant price in the market, the maintenance allowance granted in favour of opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be excessive, looking to the fact that the revisionist is working in BHEL and earns Rs.20,000/-per month. The order passed by the court below is just, proper and does not call for any interference. 5. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the revisionist, who is an able bodied person. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702 has observed as under:- "It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right". 7. In view of above, present criminal revision is disposed of finally and order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi is modified to the extent that instead of Rs.6,000/-per month from date of the application, the revisionist shall pay maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs.5,000/-per month from the date of application i.e. 10.04.2019. The revisionist shall pay amount of arrears of maintenance to the opposite party no.2 accruing from the date of application till date of order at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month in three equal installments within six months from today. The first installment of amount of arrears shall be paid by him on or before 10th of February, 2022.The second and third installments of amount of arrears shall payable by him on or before 10th of April, 2022 and 10th of June, 2022 respectively. The monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month shall be paid to opposite party no.2 regularly by the revisionist.