Smt. Nisha Parveen v. Ayub Akil Ahmed Siddique) under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74502 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1968 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ayub Akil Ahmed Siddique Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jaideep Pandey Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad at Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No.420 of 2021 (Smt. Nisha Parveen vs. Ayub Akil Ahmed Siddique) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding the maintenance allowance of Rs.7000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 total Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of presentation of application i.e. 02.07.2021. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party nos.2 & 3 are wife and minor son of the revisionist. Further submitted that opposite party no.2 was married to the revisionist in the year 2019 and from the wedlock opposite party no.3/the minor son was born. The revisionist never neglected the wife and minor son but always maintained them. Without any neglect or misbehaviour of the revisionist she went to her maika and refused to live with him. The opposite party no.2 was not willing to live with him but made pressure on him to live in Moradabad where she lived with her parents. Since the parents of the revisionist were old and suffering form old age ailments and he being only son could not go there. He works in hair cutting saloon and earns Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month and there is no any other income, therefore, he is not in a position to make payment of amount of maintenance as fixed by the learned trial court i.e. Rs.7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor child total Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of application. Learned trial court did not consider all these facts while passing the order in question but allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., therefore, requests to set it aside and allow the revision and also to reduce the amount of maintenance. Learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that after marriage the opposite party no.2 lived with the revisionist and she was got pregnant when the revisionist maltreated her and neglected to maintain her that was the reason she came to her parental house where she gave birth to a child. At the instance of relatives she again went to live with him at Mumbai with minor child where he maintained them for a month, thereafter started neglecting them and also on her refusal to obey wrongful demand he continued to beat her. When her parents came to Mumbai the revisionist sent the wife alongwith her minor child with them and since then he is not maintaining them as a result she was compelled to file an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. He also contends that the revisionist works as Deputy Manager in H.D.F.C. Bank and makes handsome income but for avoiding the liability of maintenance he has not disclosed his income and falsely alleged that he works in hair cutting saloon. The revisionist himself has attached the relieving-cum-experience letter dated 23.11.2022 received from the H.D.F.C. bank with his affidavit and during his examination before the learned trial court he has also admitted the fact that he was working as Deputy Manager in H.D.F.C. bank but now he has left the service in H.D.F.C. Bank. He has also admitted that he used to file I.T.R. but has not filed same before the learned trial court for the purpose of concealing his income. The learned trial court has fixed amount of maintenance Rs.7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor child which is not excessive but less than the sufficient. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the wife is living separate from him in her maika with minor child due to misbehaviour and neglect of the revisionist. She has alleged clearly that he misbehaved when she was pregnant as a result she came to her maika and again at the instance of relatives she went with the revisionist to Mumbai where, again, she was subjected to harassment by him and sent her with her parents with minor child since then she is living in her maika and the revisionist has not provided any money for expenses to the wife and even to the minor child. It shows that she is living apart from the revisionist due to neglect. The revisionist being husband and father of the opposite party nos.2 & 3 is legally bound to maintain them since she is not able to maintain herself as she has no source of income. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, he himself has admitted before the learned trial court that he works as Deputy Manager in H.D.F.C. Bank but now he works in hair- cutting saloon in Mumbai after leaving service from the H.D.F.C. Bank. He also admitted the fact that he used to file I.T.R. but had concealed his income and not filed any I.T.R. before the learned trial court. This shows that being Deputy Manager in H.D.F.C. Bank the revisionist cannot be said to have no handsome salary and afterwards he will be working in hair cutting saloon after resigning from H.D.F.C. It is unnatural. In view of his status and the status of wife, she is entitled for maintenance and the amount of maintenance Rs.7000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor child as fixed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be more than sufficient or excessive and beyond the paying capacity of the husband/revisionist. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned trial court, and, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. This revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad