Seema Maurya and others v. Suresh Maurya), under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:465 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6293 of 2023 Revisionist :- Suresh Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Niwash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned judgement and order dated 3.11.2023, passed by learned Additional Principal Jude, Family Court No.1, Mau, in Criminal Case No.1393 of 2019 (Seema Maurya and others vs. Suresh Maurya), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Madhuban, District Mau. By the impugned order, learned court below has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/-per month to applicant No.1 and at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are her minor children born out of wedlock of opposite party, from the date of filing of application till order dated 3.11.2023 and thereafter Rs.2000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.1000/- per month to applicant Nos.2 and 3 each, which is payable from the date of judgement.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the opposite party No.2 had left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause alongwith opposite party nos.2 and 3, who are her minor children. The revisionist is a poor labourer, who has got MNREGA job card whereby he obtained 100 days of employment as MNREGA labourer and receives remuneration at the rate of Rs.1200/- per day and for rest of the days of year, he remains jobless. His father is possessed of only 6 biswas of agricultural land. He is not having any regular source of income and for the most of the period of year, he remains unemployed. Therefore, the revisionist is not in a position to pay the maintenance to applicant Nos.1 to 3 at the rate of Rs.3000/- in total from the date of judgement. The amount awarded is exorbitant and is liable to be reduced in the interest of justice keeping in view the earning capacity of revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the court below has wrongly observed in impugned order that even if the opposite party works as a labourer, he would be in a position to earn Rs.14,000/- to 15,000/- per month and in that situation his monthly income is Rs.14,000/- to 15,000/- per month. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 submitted that the learned court below has itself awarded maintenance to private respondents on lower side and even that amount is hardly sufficient for opposite party nos.2 to 4 to make their both ends meet. There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order passed by the court below and the amount awarded in impugned order deserves no modification or reduction. On perusal of judgement of lower court, it appears that the revisionist participated in proceeding before the court below and filed his written statement therein. The matter was once referred by trial court for mediation center under Section 9 of Family Court's Act, 1984 but the same ultimately got failed. The revisionist has also filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities in compliance of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569. Learned court below considered the statements of witnesses and documents produced during hearing of the case and gave a finding that the applicant Seema Maurya and applicant No.3 Sumit are entitled to claim maintenance from opposite party being his legally wedded wife and minor son. Learned court below has also given a finding in impugned judgement that the allegations levelled by the opposite party against applicant No.1 that she is living in adultery with some other person has not been established for want of evidence. The opposite party failed to adduce any evidence on pint that the applicant is possessed of sufficient means to maintain herself. Nothing could be elicited in cross-examination of the applicant, she has stated in her evidence that opposite party visits Mumbai and works on contract. He is also having agricultural field from which he earns around Rs.1 lac whereas opposite party has stated in his evidence that he is unemployed. He is not possessed of any source of income. He works in MNREGA and a job card has been issued to him. The payment of work done by him is made in his account. The burden of proving this lies on opposite party that he is enable to earn and maintain his wife due to some illness or some other sufficient reason or he is physically or mentally disabled. Only denial of any regular source of income by opposite party is not sufficient to absolve him of liability to maintain his wife. He has given two contradictory statements with regard to his source of income before the court. Even if he works as a labourer, he can earn Rs.14000-15000/- per month. Learned court below has referred some judgements in support of his finding that the opposite party being an able bodied persons is bound to maintain his wife and minor child. Although, he has paid some money towards interim maintenance but he has failed to pay amount of interim maintenance on regular basis. The conduct of opposite party shows that he has been negligent to maintain his wife and son and with these findings, learned court below has awarded Rs.1500/- as maintenance from date of filing of application to date of judgement and Rs.3000/-in total to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 from the date of judgement. Although, a worker in MNREGA is provided 100 days of work in a year, for which he is paid at the rate of Rs.200/- per day as stated by learned counsel for the revisionist, yet for that reason only it cannot be assumed that the revisionist remains jobless throughout the year except for 100 days for which he is employed in MNREGA scheme. His father is possessed of some agricultural land of 6 biswas. The revisionist is an able bodied person, he is not supposed to remain idol for rest of the days when he is not engaged in MNREGA scheme. There is ample opportunities of labour work in villages even if a person is landless. The learned court below has awarded a paltry sum of Rs.1500/- from the date of filing of application to date of judgement and thereafter, Rs.3000/- from date of judgement to the opposite party No.2 and 4, who are wife and minor son of the revisionist. It is difficult for a person to survive even in a village in today's market condition on such a paltry sum and no deduction is desirable in this amount of maintenance awarded in impugned order. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below and the revision deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, present criminal revision stands dismissed. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Kamarjahan Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad