Smt. Sushma Pandey v. Bhaskar Upadhyay) whereby, in exercise of power under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:169775 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 184 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt Sushma Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Devendra Dev Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Pal Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vijay Kumar Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Kumar Pal, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Criminal Misc. Case No 522 of 2018 (Smt. Sushma Pandey Vs. Bhaskar Upadhyay) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month had been awarded in favour of the revisionist. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that Opposite Party No. 2 possesses diploma certificate and is employed in the Wipro Company at Sidcul, Haridwar. It has further been contended that the revisionist while filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stated that Opposite Party No. 2 is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and Opposite Party No. 2 in his reply had submitted that he is only a labourer in the Wipro Company and is earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month but he did not produce his salary slip. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in its order dated 20.10.2023 had recorded finding that Opposite Party No. 2 is a diploma holder and is working in Wipro Company at Sidcul, Haridwar and therefore his claim that he is earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month cannot be believed and further finding had been recorded that Opposite Party No. 2 is hiding his income from the court. 5. It has further been argued that on the one hand, the Family Court had accepted that Opposite Party No. 2 is hiding his income and he is drawing a handsome salary but on the other hand, while granting maintenance, a meagre amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month had been awarded as maintenance in favour of the revisionist. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that the maintenance amount awarded to the revisionist needs to be enhanced by this Court. 7. On the other hand, Sri Vijay Kumar Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Kumar Pal, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has argued that Opposite Party No. 2 had stated before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur that he is working on contractual basis in the Wipro Company and is drawing only Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary, therefore the maintenance awarded under the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 is adequate and commensurate to the monthly income of Opposite Party No.2. 8. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 9. I find that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and after scrutinizing the evidence available on the record, had recorded a categorical finding that Opposite Party No. 2 is diploma holder and is working in a well renowned company at Sidcul, Haridwar and therefore, his claim that his monthly income is only Rs. 10,000/- cannot be believed and it is apparent that he is hiding his income. For ready reference finding recorded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur is extracted as under :- "9. जहहहां तक वविवनिश्चय वबिन्दद सहां० ३ कह प्रश्नि हहै ततो इस सहांबिहांध मम आविवेवदकह दहरह अपनिन यहवचकह मम यह उलवेख वकयह गयह हहै वक वविपकन एक पढह ललिखह व्यवक्ति हहै , जतो औदतोवगक आस्थहनि (लसडकदलि) हररदहर मम एक सन०एफ०एलि० वनिमहर्मातह कहांपनिन मम उच्च तकनिनवक अलधकहरन कवे रूप मम पदस्थ हहै, लजसवे लिगभग चहलिनस हजहर रूपयवे महननिह विवेतनि प्रहप्त हतोतह हहै। आविवेवदकह दहरह पन०डब्लिलू० 1 कवे रूप मम अपनिवे सहक्ष्य मम कथनि वकयह गयह हहै वक भहष्कर निवे पपॉलिनटवेककनिक कर रखह हहै तथह लसटकदलि हररदहर मम सन०एफ०एलि० ककी कहांपनिन मम कहयर्मा करतवे हह, लजन्हम लिगभग 40 हजहर रूपयवे विवेतनि वमलितह हहै। इसकवे वविपरनत वविपकन दहरह अपनिवे जबिहविदहविवे मम यह कथनि वकयह गयह हहै वक विह उच्च तकनिनवक अलधकहरन निहहीं हहै और नि हन उसकतो 40,000/- रूपयवे प्रवतमहह वमलितवे हहै। वविपकन डन०डब्लिलू० 1 दहरह ददौरहनि प्रवतपपृच्छह यह कथनि वकयह गयह हहै वक विह वविप्रतो प्रहईविवेट कहांपनिन मम जपॉबि करतहहहै। यह जपॉबि कहन्टटवेकट बिवेस पर हहै। उसकह कहयहर्मालिय लसडकदलि हररदहर मम हहै। कहयहर्मालिय कह पतह उसवे जहत निहहीं हहै। विह कहयहर्मालिय जहतह हहै। विह लिवेबिर बिवेस पर कहम करतह हहै। वविप्रतो कहांपनिन कवे अलिहविह विह और कतोई व्यविसहय निहहीं करतह हहै। उसवे 10,000/- रूपयवे ककी सहैलिरन वमलितन हहै। सहैलिरन निकद वमलितन हहै, खहतवे मम निहहीं आतन हहै। उसनिवे अपनिन सहैलिरन कह कतोई सवटर्मावफकवेट वि रशनद दहलखलि निहहीं ककी हहै। वविपकन दहरह वदयवे गयवे सहक्ष्य सवे भन यह स्पष्ट हहै वक वविपकन प्रहईविवेट जपॉबि सवे आय अलजर्मात करतह हहै, जहहहां उसवे महलसक विवेतनि वमलितह हहै। वविपकन दहरह अपनिन महलसक आय 10,000/-रूपयवे बितहहांयन गयन हहै , परहांतद इस सहांबिहांध मम अपनिह कतोई विवेतनि प्रमहण पत दहलखलि निहहीं वकयह गयह हहै। वविपकन वविप्रतो जहैसन बिडन कहांपनिन मम कहयर्मा करतह हहै तथह वडप्लितोमह प्रमहण पत धहरक हहै, इसललिए यह निहहीं महनिह जह सकतह वक उसककी महलसक आय महत 10,000/- रूपयवे महननिह हन हतोगन। यदवप आविवेवदकह दहरह यह सहवबित निहहीं वकयह जह सकह हहै वक वविपकन ककी वनिकश्चत महलसक आय वकतनिन हहै तथहवप वविपकन दहरह भन यह सहवबित निहहीं वकयह जह सकह हहै वक उसककी आय महत 10,000/- रूपयवे महननिह हहै। वविपकन ककी वनिकश्चत महलसक आय कह तथ्य वविवशष्ट रूप सवे वविपकन ककी जहनिकहरन मम हन हतो सकतह थह , इसललिए आविवेवदकह सवे यह आशह निहहीं ककी जह सकतन वक विह वविपकन ककी वनिकश्चत महलसक आय सहवबित कर सकवे। वविपकन दहरह जहनिबिलूझकर अपनिन वनिकश्चत महलसक आय कवे सहांबिहांध मम कतोई प्रमहण पत दहलखन्न निहहीं वकयह गयह, इसललिए यह न्यहयहलिय महमलिवे तथ्य एविहां पररकस्थवतययों मम इस वनिष्करर्मा पर पहहहांचन हहै वक वविपकन कम सवे कम 15,000/-रूपयवे महलसक आय अविश्य अलजर्मात कर लिवेतह हतोगह। महनिनिनय सविर्वोच्च न्यहयहलिय निवे शमनमह फहरूखन बिनिहम शहवहद खहनि ए आई आर 2015 पवेज 2025 एविहां भदविनि मतोहर लसहांह बिनिहम मननिह तथह अन्य 2014, ककी० एलि० जवे० पवेज 3979 कवे महमलिवे मम यह वविलधक लसदहन्त प्रवतपहवदत वकयह गयह हहै वक लजस तरह कह जनविनि स्तर पवत/वपतह व्यतनत कर रहह हहै, उसन तरह कह जनविनि जननिवे कह अलधकहर पत्निन वि बिच्चयों कतो भन हहै। भरण-पतोरण कह मलूलि उदवेश्य यह हहै वक एक पत्त्निन कतो अपनिवे पवत कवे समहनि हन जनविनि जननिवे कह अलधकहर हहै। पवत कह यह वविलधक दहवयत्वि हहै वक यह दवेखवे वक उसककी पत्निन वि बिच्चवे अभहवियों कवे कहरण गरनबिन कह जनविनि यहपनि नि करवे। अततः वविवनिश्चय वबिन्दद सहां० 3 कवे सहांबिहांध मम यह न्यहयहलिय इस वनिष्करर्मा पर पहहहांचन हहै वकहां वविपकन वविप्रतो कहांपनिन मम प्रहईविवेट कहयर्मा करकवे प्रहप्त हतोनिवे विहलिन लिगभग 15,000/- रूपयवे महलसक आय सवे विह स्विहांय अपनिह वि आविवेवदकह कह भरण पतोरण कर सकनिवे मम सविर्माथह समथर्मा हहै " 10. This Court is of the view that when the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur had recorded a finding that Opposite Party No. 2 is hiding his income from the court, then it was obligatory on the court to take the income claimed by the revisionist in her application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as the correct monthly income and thereby should have awarded maintenance commensurate to the income but the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur had utterly failed to do so. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that in light of the claim made by the revisionist that monthly income of Opposite Party No. 2 is Rs. 40,000/- per month, Rs. 7,000/- per month would the adequate maintenance for the revisionist. 12. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The order dated 20.10.2023 is modified to the extent that the revisionist shall be entitled for payment of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Gaurav