Rumana Khatoon & Ors v. Tabrez Alam Shaikh) whereby, in exercise of power under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173642 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1755 of 2024 Revisionist :- Tabrez Alam Shaikh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shahabuddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the judgment and order dated 1.03.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 1005 of 2021 (Rumana Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Tabrez Alam Shaikh) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C, maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 and maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month each had been awarded in favour of Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist is working as a driver of private passenger vehicles and his monthly income is hardly Rs. 10,000/- therefore, it is apparent that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh had awarded excessive maintenance in favour of Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 under the impugned order dated 1.03.2024. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has pointed out that the revisionist himself had admitted before the trial court that he is the driver of a vehicle which is being run under the contract of the Ola Company. The revisionist had further admitted that, at an earlier point of time, he had been in Saudi Arab, where he was employed and had earned money. It had also been admitted by the revisionist that he is capable of maintaining himself and his family. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, on the basis of the aforesaid admission made by the revisionist before the trial court, has argued that the impugned order dated 1.03.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the instant revision is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State. 7. I find that the revisionist had categorically admitted before the trial court that he has sufficient source of income to maintain himself and his family. I further find that the revisionist while deposing before the trial court had admitted that he is the driver of a vehicle which is being run under the contract with the Ola Company in Mumbai and further he had also admitted that, at an earlier point of time, he was employed in Saudi Arab and had earned sufficient money. 8. This Court is of the view that the trial court, in the matters of award of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is under obligation to assess the income of the husband as per his overall financial status and in the present case, the entire facts and circumstances in respect of the revisionist's income had been considered by the trial court. The finding recorded by the trial court, in the impugned order dated 1.03.2024, is extracted as under :- " अतत उपररक तथयय एवव ववपकक ददरद पवतपरककद मम वदयय गयय सदकय कय वववयचन व ववशलयषण सय आवयवदकद कक आय अररन हरनय कद तथय सदवबत नहह हरतद हह। आवयवदकद ववपकक कक वववदवहतद पतनक हह और दणड पवकयद सववहतद कक धदरद 125 कय अनतगरत वववदवहतद पतनक अगर अपनद भरण- कदरणय कय आधदर पर अपनय पवत सय अलग रह रहक हह एवव उसकद पवत भरण- परषण करनय मम असमरर हह और वह पयदरप परषण करनय मम उपयकद करतद हह और ऐसक उपयकद यद इनकदर पतदवलक पर सदवबत हर रदतक हह तर वववदवहतद पतनक अपनय पवत सय भरण- परषण पदप करनय कक अधधकदररणक हरगक। उपररक ववशलयषण सय यह सपष हह वक आवयवदकद कय भरण- आवयवदकद कर रब सय ववपकक ददरद घर सय वनकदलद गयद हह, कर करई खचदर यद भरण- बचचय भरण- परषण करनय मम असमरर हह। परषण कद करई रररयद नहह हह। तब सय ववपकक ददरद आवयवदकद परषण अदद नहह वकयद गयद हह। आवयवदकद सवयव अपनद व दरनय ववपकक कक आमदनक कय समबनध मम आवयवदकद ददरद करन वकयद गयद हह वक ववपकक कक अचछक खयतक बदरक हह। ववपकक गदडक चलदतद हह, धरससय मम० 80000 र० पवतमदह आय अधररत कर लयतद हह तरद आवयवदकद व दरनय बचचय कद भरण परषण करनय मम सकम हह। रबवक ववपकक नय अपनय रवदबददवद मम चदर पवहयद वदहन चलदकर छत- सदत हरदर र० पवतमदह कमदनय कद करन वकयद गयद हह। ववपकक नय अपनक पवतपरककद मम मममबई मम ओलद कमपनक कक गदडक चलदनद भक सवककदर वकयद हह और यह भक सवककदर वकयद गयद हह वक, " मम अपनक बकबक व बचचय कद खचर चलदनय मम सकम हह नहह मदललम।" करतक हह वक नहह, ववपकक ददरद ववदयश सऊदक अरब मम रहकर कमदनय कद ह। मयरक पतनक करई ननकरक इस समय तथय भक सवककदर वकयद गयद हह। अतत उपररक तथयय व सदकयय सय यह सपष हरतद हह वक ववपकक ददरद अपनय आय अररन कय अनय शरतय कय तथय कद लरप वकयद गयद हह। धदरद 125 दव०प०सव० कय मदमलय मम यह नहह कहद गयद हह वक कय वल एक सकम पवत हक अपनक पतनक कद भरण परषण करनय कय धलए बदधय हरगद। धदरद 125 दव०प०सव० पतनक कक खमद कर बनदयय रखनय मम असमररतद कक बदत करतक हह और इस समबनध मम पवत कक शदरकररक अकमतद यद कमदई कक कमतद कय बदरय मम नहक कहतक हह। इस पकदर पवत कद वववदह मम पवयश करनद हक इस तथय कद सवकय त हह वक वह अपनक पतनक कर बनदयय रखनय एवव उसकय भरण परषण कद ददवयतव धलयद हह। अपनक पतनक एवव अवयसक बचचय कद भरण परषण करनद पवत/ पवत/ कद भरण परषण करनय हयतम पवत/ वपतद कय पदस आय कद करई सपष सरत नहह हह। अपनक पतनक एवव अवयसक बचचय वपतद कद ददवयतव वहवदवहक ससरवत सय उतपन हरतद हह, न वपतद कक पहलक नहवतक धरममयददरक हह, भलय हक यह सदवबत हर वक वक वकसक सवववददतमक ददवयतवय कय तहत। इसधलए ववपकक कक इस दलकल पर भरण परषण कय ददवयतव सय ममक नहक वकयद रद सकतद वक उसकद करई उतरददवयतव आवयवदकद कय पवत नहह हह यद उसकय पदस भमगतदन करनय कय धलए करई सदधन नहह हह। ववपकक शदरकररक व मदनधसक रप सय सवसर एवव सदधन समपन वयवक हह तरद ववपकक कक आधररक आय अररन कद शरत हरनद भक सदवबत हरतद हह। आवयवदकद सव० 1 रमदनद खदतलन ववपकक कक वववदवहतद पतनक एवव अवयसक ररकद तबरयर शयख व अरहदन तबरयर शयख ववपकक कक सवतदन हह और ववपकक कक यह नहवतक एवव ववधधक धरममयददरक हह वक वह अपनक पतनक एवव अवयसक बचचय कद भरण परषण करय। ववपकक कय पदस अपनक पतनक एवव अवयसक बचचय कर परवषत करनय हयतम आय कय सममवचत शरत हम, एवव अवयसक बचचय कद भरण परषण करनय सय इनकदर कर रहद हह, अवयसक बचचय, ववपकक सय भरण परषण भतद पदप करनय कय अधधकदरक हह।" वकनतम ववपकक, आवयवदकद रबवक आवयवदकद एवव 9. Since the trial court, on the basis of admission made by the revisionist, had recorded a finding that he has sufficient source of income and thereby had proceeded to awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to Opposite Party No. 2 and Rs. 2500/- per month each to Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4., I do not find that the trial court in any manner had awarded excessive maintenance in favour of Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4. I also do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 1.03.2024. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 6.11.2024/Gaurav