High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwati, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 27.6.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Firozabad in Maintenance Case No. 136 of 2017 (Smt. Roshini Vs. Krishna Kumar) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month from the date of application and the maintenance of Rs.10000/- per month from the date of order had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that initially an ex-parte order was passed wherein, maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month was awarded and thereafter the revisionist filed an application for recall of that order and the order was recalled. It has further been argued that thereafter without there being any new evidence on record, the Family Court had decided the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 27.6.2022 and the amount of maintenance had been enhanced.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that it is an admitted case of the revisionist that he is a Class-III employee in an establishment of the Government of India and, as on date, he is receiving monthly gross salary of Rs. 49,118/- and therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded vide the impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2022, in no way, can be termed excessive.

5. I have considered arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

6. Before proceeding to decide the matter, it is noteworthy that the revisionist while filing rejoinder affidavit had annexed his salary slip which in categorical terms reflects that the revisionist is a Class-III employee working in an establishment of the Government of India and he is receiving monthly gross salary of Rs. 49,118/-.

7. I find that the learned trial court had considered the entire evidence in its threadbare and had recorded a finding that the revisionist is a Class-III employee working in the establishment of the Government of India and at the relevant point of time he was receiving net monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. For ready reference, the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2022 is extracted as under:- "9- ननसततरण नवननशचयततमक नबनदद सस० -(2), नक यह कहत गयत आगरत मम टक/एन. आववनदकत दतरत अपनव आववदनपत मम यह कहत गयत नक नवपकक कव पद पर कतयररत हह जजसव मतजसक ववतन 23, 184/-रपयव सक.ओ.डक. नमलतत हह तथत गतसव मम खवतक हह खखब अचछत खतसत मकतन बनत हहआ हह तथत खवतक हवतद हकटर आनद समसत यसत हह जजससव करकब 20,000/- टट रपयव कक आमदनक हहतक हह कद ल नमलतकर 43,184/- रपयव पनतमतह नवपकक कक आमदनक हहतक हह। नवपकक दतरत अपनव पनतवतदपत मम यह कहत गयत नक वह कम दकय आयदद भणडतर, आगरत मम चतदथर शवणक कव पद पर कतयररत हह। इस ससबसध मम पततवलक पर उपलबध सतकय कत अवलहकन करनव पर पकट हहतत हह नक नवपकक दतरत अपनक ममजखक परककत कव दमरतन यह कहत गयत नक मम भक शतदक सव पखवर आगरत सक.ओ.डक. मम नमकरक करतत थत। आगव कहत मदझव कतटपकट कर करकब 25,000/- रपयव पनतमतह नमलतव हम। ओ०पक०डबलख०-2 अरनवनद कद मतर जहनक नवपकक कत सगत मतमत हह उसकव दतरत जजरह मम स मवरत भतसजत कक षण कद मतर सक.ओ.डक. आगरत यह कहत गयत नक मम आमर मम नतयक सदबवदतर हह मम चतदथर शवणक कमरचतरक हह। आगव कहत यह कहनत सहक हह नक कक षण कद मतर तकतकय शवणक कत कमरचतरक हह। नवपकक दतरत पततवलक पर दतजखल शपथपत कतगज सस०-38 ब कव अवलहकन सव पकट पद पर आगरत मम टक/एम. हहतत हह नक उक शपथपत मम नवपकक दतरत वयवसतय मम सक.ओ.डक. मजदखरक कतयर करनत बततयत हह व मतजसक आय 23,184/- रपयव हहनत बततयत हह तथत पसरनल लहन कक नकसत 13,551/- रपयव कटनत बततयत हह परसतद इस ससबसध मम कहई सतकय बतमर ससलगक शपथपत कव सतथ दतजखल नहह नकयत गयत हह व नत हक अपनक अदतन ववतन पचर दतजखल कक गयक हह। नयतयतलय कव अनभमत मम नवपकक दतरत अपनक ममजखक सतकय जहनक नदनतसक 28-01-2021 कह ससपन हहई हह उसमम अपनक तनखवतह कतटपकट कर 25,000/- रपयव पनतमतह बततयक गयक हह तथत शपथपत जहनक नवपकक दतरत नदनतसक 23- कह पसतदत नकयत गयत हह उसमम इसकव दतरत अपनक तनखवतह 23,184/- रपयव 06-2022 पनतमतह बततयक गयक हह ऐसत पतकत हहतत हह नक नवपकक जतनबखझकर अपनक तनखवतह छद पतनत चतहतत हह इसकव अनतररक नवपकक दतरत सवयस कह सक.ओ.डक. आगरत मम चतदथर शवणक पद पर कतयररत हहनत बततयत गयत हह जबनक ओ०पक०डबलख०-2 दतरत यह सवककतर नकयत गयत हह नक नवपकक तकतकय शवणक कत कमरचतरक हह। ऐसव मम यह सपष हह नक नवपकक जतनबखझकर तथयय कह छद पतनव कत पयतस कर रहत हह जबनक वह सतधन ससपन वयनक हह तथत आववनदकत कत भरण पहषण करनव मम सकम हह।"

8. This Court finds that the trial court has considered the entire evidence in its entirety and had recorded a finding that the revisionist is a well off person and he can easily pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to his wife. Even otherwise, as on date, the revisionist, while filing the rejoinder affidavit, had stated that he is a Class-III employee in the establishment of the Government of India and is receiving gross salary of Rs. 49,118/- per month, therefore by no stretch of imagination the maintenance amount awarded to the Opposite Party No. 2 can be said to be excessive.

9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.6.2022.

10. This revision lacks merit and is hereby by dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 n.u./A. Mandhani ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwati, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 27.6.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1, Firozabad in Maintenance Case No. 136 of 2017 (Smt. Roshini Vs. Krishna Kumar) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month from the date of application and the maintenance of Rs.10000/- per month from the date of order had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that initially an ex-parte order was passed wherein, maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month was awarded and thereafter the revisionist filed an application for recall of that order and the order was recalled. It has further been argued that thereafter without there being any new evidence on record, the Family Court had decided the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 27.6.2022 and the amount of maintenance had been enhanced.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that it is an admitted case of the revisionist that he is a Class-III employee in an establishment of the Government of India and, as on date, he is receiving monthly gross salary of Rs. 49,118/- and therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded vide the impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2022, in no way, can be termed excessive.

5. I have considered arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

6. Before proceeding to decide the matter, it is noteworthy that the revisionist while filing rejoinder affidavit had annexed his salary slip which in categorical terms reflects that the revisionist is a Class-III employee working in an establishment of the Government of India and he is receiving monthly gross salary of Rs. 49,118/-.

7. I find that the learned trial court had considered the entire evidence in its threadbare and had recorded a finding that the revisionist is a Class-III employee working in the establishment of the Government of India and at the relevant point of time he was receiving net monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. For ready reference, the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2022 is extracted as under:- "9- ननसततरण नवननशचयततमक नबनदद सस० -(2), नक यह कहत गयत आगरत मम टक/एन. आववनदकत दतरत अपनव आववदनपत मम यह कहत गयत नक नवपकक कव पद पर कतयररत हह जजसव मतजसक ववतन 23, 184/-रपयव सक.ओ.डक. नमलतत हह तथत गतसव मम खवतक हह खखब अचछत खतसत मकतन बनत हहआ हह तथत खवतक हवतद हकटर आनद समसत यसत हह जजससव करकब 20,000/- टट रपयव कक आमदनक हहतक हह कद ल नमलतकर 43,184/- रपयव पनतमतह नवपकक कक आमदनक हहतक हह। नवपकक दतरत अपनव पनतवतदपत मम यह कहत गयत नक वह कम दकय आयदद भणडतर, आगरत मम चतदथर शवणक कव पद पर कतयररत हह। इस ससबसध मम पततवलक पर उपलबध सतकय कत अवलहकन करनव पर पकट हहतत हह नक नवपकक दतरत अपनक ममजखक परककत कव दमरतन यह कहत गयत नक मम भक शतदक सव पखवर आगरत सक.ओ.डक. मम नमकरक करतत थत। आगव कहत मदझव कतटपकट कर करकब 25,000/- रपयव पनतमतह नमलतव हम। ओ०पक०डबलख०-2 अरनवनद कद मतर जहनक नवपकक कत सगत मतमत हह उसकव दतरत जजरह मम स मवरत भतसजत कक षण कद मतर सक.ओ.डक. आगरत यह कहत गयत नक मम आमर मम नतयक सदबवदतर हह मम चतदथर शवणक कमरचतरक हह। आगव कहत यह कहनत सहक हह नक कक षण कद मतर तकतकय शवणक कत कमरचतरक हह। नवपकक दतरत पततवलक पर दतजखल शपथपत कतगज सस०-38 ब कव अवलहकन सव पकट पद पर आगरत मम टक/एम. हहतत हह नक उक शपथपत मम नवपकक दतरत वयवसतय मम सक.ओ.डक. मजदखरक कतयर करनत बततयत हह व मतजसक आय 23,184/- रपयव हहनत बततयत हह तथत पसरनल लहन कक नकसत 13,551/- रपयव कटनत बततयत हह परसतद इस ससबसध मम कहई सतकय बतमर ससलगक शपथपत कव सतथ दतजखल नहह नकयत गयत हह व नत हक अपनक अदतन ववतन पचर दतजखल कक गयक हह। नयतयतलय कव अनभमत मम नवपकक दतरत अपनक ममजखक सतकय जहनक नदनतसक 28-01-2021 कह ससपन हहई हह उसमम अपनक तनखवतह कतटपकट कर 25,000/- रपयव पनतमतह बततयक गयक हह तथत शपथपत जहनक नवपकक दतरत नदनतसक 23- कह पसतदत नकयत गयत हह उसमम इसकव दतरत अपनक तनखवतह 23,184/- रपयव 06-2022 पनतमतह बततयक गयक हह ऐसत पतकत हहतत हह नक नवपकक जतनबखझकर अपनक तनखवतह छद पतनत चतहतत हह इसकव अनतररक नवपकक दतरत सवयस कह सक.ओ.डक. आगरत मम चतदथर शवणक पद पर कतयररत हहनत बततयत गयत हह जबनक ओ०पक०डबलख०-2 दतरत यह सवककतर नकयत गयत हह नक नवपकक तकतकय शवणक कत कमरचतरक हह। ऐसव मम यह सपष हह नक नवपकक जतनबखझकर तथयय कह छद पतनव कत पयतस कर रहत हह जबनक वह सतधन ससपन वयनक हह तथत आववनदकत कत भरण पहषण करनव मम सकम हह।"

8. This Court finds that the trial court has considered the entire evidence in its entirety and had recorded a finding that the revisionist is a well off person and he can easily pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to his wife. Even otherwise, as on date, the revisionist, while filing the rejoinder affidavit, had stated that he is a Class-III employee in the establishment of the Government of India and is receiving gross salary of Rs. 49,118/- per month, therefore by no stretch of imagination the maintenance amount awarded to the Opposite Party No. 2 can be said to be excessive.

9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.6.2022.

10. This revision lacks merit and is hereby by dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 n.u./A. Mandhani ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad