High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Revisionist :- Smt. Rashmi Kamboj And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nipun Singh,Sumit Suri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Kumar Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Pleadings have already been exchanged. Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred by the 2. revisionists who are applicants in Maintenance Case No.464 of 2017, in (Smt. Rashmi Kamboj and two others Vs. Rajiv Kamboj) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2023. Learned court below has, granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance to the applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- as monthly interim maintenance to each of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 who are off-springs of applicant No.1, and opposite party in said maintenance case. The maintenance has been awarded from the date of filing of application to applicant No.1 at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application till the attainment of majority.
3. In instant criminal revision the revisionists have prayed for enhancement of said maintenance awarded to them. It is also directed in impugned order that a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded as maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act during pendency of divorce petition No.735 of 2015 will be liable to be adjusted towards maintenance awarded in present order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants by placing reliance on income tax return of opposite party No.2 for the year 2021-22, which shows his annual income of Rs.4,33,100/-. Whereas it is settled position of law that maintenance should not be awarded on the basis of income shown in income tax return of opposite party. He next submitted that opposite party has admitted in his written statement that he is a renowned and respectable surgeon who operates a eye clinic in Muzaffar Nagar in the name of Kamboj Eye Care Center. The revisionist has stated that the monthly income of respondent No.2 is around Rs.20 lakh and in fact the opposite party earns this much amount on monthly basis, whereas learned trial court has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.20,000/- to the applicants. Respondent No.2 has huge source of income from medical practice as a well known eye surgeon and other sources.
6. He next submitted that applicant No.2 Kartikeya Kamboj has received higher education in Bhatinda in Punjab and applicant No.3 Shubhangi Kamboj is receiving higher education in Kazakhstan, for which the revisionist incurs huge expenses which she any how manages from taking assistance from her parental side. This is admitted fact that only Rs.20,000/- as maintenance has been provided to the applicants in pursuance of order of Family Court passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in divorce petition initiated at the instance of opposite party No.2, which was dismissed by family court. However, its appeal is pending before this Hon'ble Court. He next submitted that revisionist Nos. 2 and 3 are still receiving higher education in their respective State, they need an adequate sum of money towards maintenance to continue their higher studies, but the learned court below has not considered this relevant point.
7. He lastly submitted that revisionist has elaborated the need of enhancement of maintenance in revision memo, particularly in paragraph Nos. R,S and T of revision memo.The revisionists need maintenance at least Rs.1 lakh per month.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on Kiran Tomar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1539; Jayvardhan Singh Chapotkat Vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat, 2014 SCC Online Bombay 465; In the Matter of : Urvashi Aggarwal and others Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4641; Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303; Jagdish Jugtawat Vs.
Revisionist :- Smt. Rashmi Kamboj And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nipun Singh,Sumit Suri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Kumar Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Pleadings have already been exchanged. Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred by the 2. revisionists who are applicants in Maintenance Case No.464 of 2017, in (Smt. Rashmi Kamboj and two others Vs. Rajiv Kamboj) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2023. Learned court below has, granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance to the applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- as monthly interim maintenance to each of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 who are off-springs of applicant No.1, and opposite party in said maintenance case. The maintenance has been awarded from the date of filing of application to applicant No.1 at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application till the attainment of majority.
3. In instant criminal revision the revisionists have prayed for enhancement of said maintenance awarded to them. It is also directed in impugned order that a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded as maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act during pendency of divorce petition No.735 of 2015 will be liable to be adjusted towards maintenance awarded in present order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants by placing reliance on income tax return of opposite party No.2 for the year 2021-22, which shows his annual income of Rs.4,33,100/-. Whereas it is settled position of law that maintenance should not be awarded on the basis of income shown in income tax return of opposite party. He next submitted that opposite party has admitted in his written statement that he is a renowned and respectable surgeon who operates a eye clinic in Muzaffar Nagar in the name of Kamboj Eye Care Center. The revisionist has stated that the monthly income of respondent No.2 is around Rs.20 lakh and in fact the opposite party earns this much amount on monthly basis, whereas learned trial court has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.20,000/- to the applicants. Respondent No.2 has huge source of income from medical practice as a well known eye surgeon and other sources.
6. He next submitted that applicant No.2 Kartikeya Kamboj has received higher education in Bhatinda in Punjab and applicant No.3 Shubhangi Kamboj is receiving higher education in Kazakhstan, for which the revisionist incurs huge expenses which she any how manages from taking assistance from her parental side. This is admitted fact that only Rs.20,000/- as maintenance has been provided to the applicants in pursuance of order of Family Court passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in divorce petition initiated at the instance of opposite party No.2, which was dismissed by family court. However, its appeal is pending before this Hon'ble Court. He next submitted that revisionist Nos. 2 and 3 are still receiving higher education in their respective State, they need an adequate sum of money towards maintenance to continue their higher studies, but the learned court below has not considered this relevant point.
7. He lastly submitted that revisionist has elaborated the need of enhancement of maintenance in revision memo, particularly in paragraph Nos. R,S and T of revision memo.The revisionists need maintenance at least Rs.1 lakh per month.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on Kiran Tomar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1539; Jayvardhan Singh Chapotkat Vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat, 2014 SCC Online Bombay 465; In the Matter of : Urvashi Aggarwal and others Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4641; Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303; Jagdish Jugtawat Vs.