High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 89 Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101086 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1507 of 2023 Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar @ Rinku Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Harish Chandra Dwivedi,Vijay Laxmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. Shri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist,
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute with regard to salary of the revisionist and the revisionist has filed evasive reply with regard to his salary. 8. The application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been filed on 6.11.2017. The opposite party No. 2 left her matrimonial house on 4.9.2017. 9.
Arguments
learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 are present. 2. Present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, 3rd, Jaunpur in Case No. 903 of 2017, under Section 125, Cr.P.C., whereby application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been allowed and Rs. 7,000/- has been awarded to opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded to opposite party No. 3 from the date of application till the attaining of majority. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that opposite party No. 2 has left her matrimonial house without any reasonable ground and she is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from sewing. The revisionist is constable in B.S.F. and is earning a salary of Rs. 33,689/- per month at present. The parents of the revisionist are old age person. The revisionist has liability of his parents as well as his unmarried sister and brother. The impugned order has been passed awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 from the date of application without appreciating the evidence on record. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 supported the judgement passed by Principal Judge, Family Court and submitted that opposite party No. 2 has no source of livelihood. The opposite party No. 2 left her matrimonial house after making cruelty. The marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party No. 2 on 2 15.12.2014 and on 4.9.2017, the revisionist and his family members ousted the opposite party No. 2 from her matrimonial house. 5. The main thrusts of the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that in the present case, excessive maintenance was awarded from the date of application. 6. In this regard the law has been laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 and the relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced hereinbelow: “77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. 79. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC (Civ) 712 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain 3 under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able- bodied and has educational qualifications. 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. 82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any other source. 83. Section 20(2) of the DV Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLIne Del 622 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8) “1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The independent income and property of the claimant. 4 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. ” 85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable. 111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislation, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependent from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.” 7.
Decision
In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the present criminal revision and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, present revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. Order Date :- 10.5.2023 T. Sinha Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad