Alka Singh v. Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh) under section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21842 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3078 of 2024 Revisionist :- Dr Bhanu Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 7.5.2024 passed by Principal Judge, family court, Sonbhadra in Crl. Misc. Case no. 131 of 2021 (Alka Singh vs. Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh) under section 127(1) Cr.P.C., P.S. Robertsganj, district Sonbhadra. By the impugned order learned court below has enhanced the maintenance awarded to the applicant Alka Singh in maintenance case no. 322 of 2016 under section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 6.12.2017 whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded as maintenance from the date of judgement dated 6.12.2017 and enhanced the same amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of judgement dated 7.5.2024.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. As per office report, notice was issued to respondent no. 2, original applicant. But the same could not be served as she was not found on the given address. The prosecution case in brief is that applicant Alka Singh filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, family court, Sonbhadra, which was registered as maintenance case no. 322 of 2016 in which she stated that she is legally wedded wife of opposite party; the marriage was solemnized with him 15- 16 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals at her parental place situated at Vikas Nagar, Rabertsganj; opposite party obtained job after sometime of marriage; opposite party started harassing and torturing her by leveling allegation of characterless-ness against her; in the meanwhile he contracted second marriage with one Sunita daughter of Shivmuni in the year 2014; the opposite party has a daughter also born out from his wedlock with Sunita; being perturbed by the activities of her husband she left her matrimonial home in the year 2015 and shifted to her parental place Sonbhadra; the opposite party and his second wife Sunita used to visit her place of residence at Robertsganj and harass her; she has also filed a criminal case of harassment against him before the court which is pending; the opposite party never took care of applicant; he did not pay any thing to meet her expenses; applicant is dependent on her widow mother, she is unemployed woman, she is not skilled to do any job; monthly earning of her husband, who is in government job, is Rs. 80,000/-, she claimed Rs. 30,000/- as monthly maintenance from her husband. The opposite party appeared before the court below in proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. and filed his written statement on 29.3.2017; learned court below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties gave finding that this is admitted fact that the applicant is legally wedded wife of opposite party; she is living separately from her husband; both the parties have leveled allegation against each other; the applicant has alleged that the opposite party did not keep her with dignity and used to engage in marpeet and abusive with her; he performed second marriage, therefore, it is not possible for her to live with him; opposite party has also leveled allegation against the applicant that she is woman of free, she is a wayward woman, she is not ready to live with opposite party as his wife; he has not contracted any remarriage; learned court below gave a finding that the applicant is not having any independent source of income whereas opposite party has admitted that he is posted as doctor in PHC and his monthly salary is Rs. 69,000/-; the applicant is entitled to live upto standard of living which she would have got if she lived with opposite party. With this finding learned court below has awarded Rs. 10,000/- as monthly maintenance from the date of judgement dated 6.12.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded under section 125 Cr.P.C., the applicant filed an application under section 127(1) Cr.P.C. before the court below in which she stated that amount of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance awarded to her under section 125 Cr.P.C. is insufficient to meet her necessary expenses to lead a dignified life; monthly salary of her husband has enhanced to Rs. 1,25,000/- at present and the amount of maintenance awarded earlier by the court below is wholly insufficient due to increase in cost of living; dependency of another brother of opposite party has now ended as he has attained majority and he is able to maintain himself; he is also maintaining his father; applicant used to pay Rs. 3,000/- as house rent in the year 2017 it has now increased to Rs. 6,000/- per month; the dearness has increased upto 25% since the year 2017, therefore, amount of maintenance is liable to be enhanced; learned court below has enhanced the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of judgement dated 7.5.2024 passed under section 127(1) Cr.P.C. after considering pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the applicant filed application under section 127 Cr.P.C. without any substantial cause and reason; learned court below has misconstrued the provision of section 127(1) Cr.P.C. and totally ignored the statement of opposite party Smt. Alka, who said in her cross examination that she is qualified lady and has degree of M.A. in social science and can teach different subject; learned court below has not taken into consideration the material pleaded in objection wherein he has specifically stated that the applicant is not living in a rented accommodation but in parental place and she is able to maintain herself having academic qualification of M.A.; she has no liability of her own survival, although revisionist has stated in cross examination dated 9.8.2023 that his salary was Rs. 70,000/- in the year 2017 and now it has become Rs. 94,000/- and he is agriculture land holder having one hectare which is also non irrigated area; this is noticeable that he has to pay Rs. 32,500/- as monthly installment of home loan of Rs. 30 lakhs taken by him. At the time of passing earlier order dated 6.12.2017 the question of grant of rented accommodation or house rent was neither taken by the applicant nor considered by the court. He next submitted that the revisionist has filed an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liability on 2.5.2024 in compliance of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha wherein he has stated that he is Ayurvedic doctor having BAMS qualification; his monthly income is Rs. 73,980/- and after discharging certain monetary liability, a small sum of money remains with him; learned court below has enhanced the amount of maintenance in double manner what was awarded in earlier order dated 6.12.2017 in application under section 125 Cr.P.C. without any cogent reason. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the revisionist has not specifically denied the allegation that at the time of filing of application under section 125 Cr.P.C., his monthly salary had enhanced substantially and at present it is around Rs. 1,25,000/- per month; the revisionist had admitted in his affidavit of disclosure of asset and liability that his monthly salary was Rs. 94,000/-; considering the monthly income of the revisionist which is more than one lakh per month at the time of passing of impugned order, the enhanced amount of maintenance Rs. 20,000/- per month is still less than 25% of net salary income of the revisionist and in no manner it can be termed as exorbitant or beyond financial capacity of the revisionist. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on meticulous perusal of impugned judgement and order and other materials and evidence available on record, I find that the maintenance awarded earlier to the applicant deserved to be enhanced in the light of the fact that during this period, salaried income of the revisionist increased substantially and costs of living also increased during this period for which maintenance awarded on 6.12.2016 was liable to be altered and increased even after enhancement of maintenance; the enhanced maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month is still less than 25% of net salaried income of the revisionist; it is also admitted fact that he is having agricultural land and is supposed to earn some income therefrom also. Therefore, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned court below. The revision is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad