Vandana and another v. Ravi Yadav) under section

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that original applicant Vandana is wife of revisionist and Dev Yadav is minor son born out of his wedlock with his wife Vandana; the applicant filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the revisionist, which has been finally decided by order dated 9.8.2023; prior to this, interim maintenance was awarded @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant by the court below, which was regularly paid by the revisionist during pendency of revision; he has also paid a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the applicant in compliance of order for interim maintenance; learned court below has assessed notional income of Rs. 12,000/- in the impugned order on premise that even an agricultural labourer can earn Rs. 12,000/- per month on average of Rs. 400/- per day; learned court below lost sight of the fact that this is admitted situation that revisionist suffered a gunshot injury for which a case under section 307 IPC was lodged at the instance of revisionist vide case crime no. 261 of 2020 against his father-in-law and uncle-in-law in which police has submitted final report; the applicant side has not denied this fact that the revisionist has suffered firearm injury but they have taken a stand that the revisionist visited parental place of applicant no. 1 and fired a shot by a country made pistol on his person on 12.8.2020 as appearing from evidence of PW-2 Kamlesh Kumar, father of respondent no. 2. He is still facing difficulty to work due to firearm injury suffered in said incident dated 12.8.2020 and extract of Khatauni was filed by the applicant before the court below of agricultural year 1425-1430 in which 0.3850 hectare land is recorded in the name of father of the revisionist and his co- sharer and in another Khata 1.3880 hectare agricultural land recorded in the name of father of revisionist; total six and half bigha agricultural land was lying in the name of father of revisionist, which was inherited by him alongwith his mother in half share after death of his father in the year 2021. He next submitted that in view of physical injury, revisionist is not able to perform his agricultural activities of his own and he had to take assistance of agricultural labourer and for that reason his agricultural income is not sufficient to cater to his own expenses and to pay maintenance as awarded in the judgement and order dated 9.8.2023; the amount awarded in the impugned order is excessive in the light of monthly earning of revisionist from agricultural work and same may be reduced in the larger interest of justice; the revisionist has been victim of highhandedness and cruelty meted out to him by wife and his father-in-law; it is wrong to say he earns substantial sum of money from business of dairy; infact he is not carrying out any business of dairy; he is a fragile person and is not keeping well even now; the respondent no. 2 herself left her matrimonial home on her own sweet will; she has exerted pressure on him to get agricultural land recorded in her name which was real cause of altercation between spouse; he tried to make her understand alongwith her relatives but she was not ready to live with him and ultimately left the place of the revisionist. It is wrong to say that respondent no. 2 was thrown out from his place on 10.8.2020 after giving beating to her; respondent no. 2 runs a coaching institute and earns sufficiently and being a private institution the revisionist could not find documentary evidence in support of this version; the revisionist has proved his case through evidence of DW-1, Ravi Yadav, DW-2 Chandra Prakash and DW-3 Subhash. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that amount awarded in the impugned order is on lower side, reasonable and just and needs no interference in present revision. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and giving thoughtful consideration on the material available on record, I find no substantial legal or factual error in the impugned order, however taking into consideration that the revisionist himself suffered from firearm injury in an unfortunate situation and there appears some weight in his contention raised that due to firearm injury received by him it is not incumbent on him to carry out agricultural activities by him on his own, in my considered opinion, the amount awarded in the impugned order deserves to be reduced slightly. It is directed that the amount awarded in the impugned order to the applicant no. 1 a sum of Rs. 4,000/- is reduced to Rs. 3,000/- per month and amount awarded to the applicant no. 2 is kept intact. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. The revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that original applicant Vandana is wife of revisionist and Dev Yadav is minor son born out of his wedlock with his wife Vandana; the applicant filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the revisionist, which has been finally decided by order dated 9.8.2023; prior to this, interim maintenance was awarded @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant by the court below, which was regularly paid by the revisionist during pendency of revision; he has also paid a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the applicant in compliance of order for interim maintenance; learned court below has assessed notional income of Rs. 12,000/- in the impugned order on premise that even an agricultural labourer can earn Rs. 12,000/- per month on average of Rs. 400/- per day; learned court below lost sight of the fact that this is admitted situation that revisionist suffered a gunshot injury for which a case under section 307 IPC was lodged at the instance of revisionist vide case crime no. 261 of 2020 against his father-in-law and uncle-in-law in which police has submitted final report; the applicant side has not denied this fact that the revisionist has suffered firearm injury but they have taken a stand that the revisionist visited parental place of applicant no. 1 and fired a shot by a country made pistol on his person on 12.8.2020 as appearing from evidence of PW-2 Kamlesh Kumar, father of respondent no. 2. He is still facing difficulty to work due to firearm injury suffered in said incident dated 12.8.2020 and extract of Khatauni was filed by the applicant before the court below of agricultural year 1425-1430 in which 0.3850 hectare land is recorded in the name of father of the revisionist and his co- sharer and in another Khata 1.3880 hectare agricultural land recorded in the name of father of revisionist; total six and half bigha agricultural land was lying in the name of father of revisionist, which was inherited by him alongwith his mother in half share after death of his father in the year 2021. He next submitted that in view of physical injury, revisionist is not able to perform his agricultural activities of his own and he had to take assistance of agricultural labourer and for that reason his agricultural income is not sufficient to cater to his own expenses and to pay maintenance as awarded in the judgement and order dated 9.8.2023; the amount awarded in the impugned order is excessive in the light of monthly earning of revisionist from agricultural work and same may be reduced in the larger interest of justice; the revisionist has been victim of highhandedness and cruelty meted out to him by wife and his father-in-law; it is wrong to say he earns substantial sum of money from business of dairy; infact he is not carrying out any business of dairy; he is a fragile person and is not keeping well even now; the respondent no. 2 herself left her matrimonial home on her own sweet will; she has exerted pressure on him to get agricultural land recorded in her name which was real cause of altercation between spouse; he tried to make her understand alongwith her relatives but she was not ready to live with him and ultimately left the place of the revisionist. It is wrong to say that respondent no. 2 was thrown out from his place on 10.8.2020 after giving beating to her; respondent no. 2 runs a coaching institute and earns sufficiently and being a private institution the revisionist could not find documentary evidence in support of this version; the revisionist has proved his case through evidence of DW-1, Ravi Yadav, DW-2 Chandra Prakash and DW-3 Subhash. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that amount awarded in the impugned order is on lower side, reasonable and just and needs no interference in present revision. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and giving thoughtful consideration on the material available on record, I find no substantial legal or factual error in the impugned order, however taking into consideration that the revisionist himself suffered from firearm injury in an unfortunate situation and there appears some weight in his contention raised that due to firearm injury received by him it is not incumbent on him to carry out agricultural activities by him on his own, in my considered opinion, the amount awarded in the impugned order deserves to be reduced slightly. It is directed that the amount awarded in the impugned order to the applicant no. 1 a sum of Rs. 4,000/- is reduced to Rs. 3,000/- per month and amount awarded to the applicant no. 2 is kept intact. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. The revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad