Smt. Arpita and another v. Pankaj) under section

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 4.6.2024 passed by Principal Judge, family court, Sambhal situated at Chandausi in maintenance case no. 236 of 2022 (Smt. Arpita and another vs. Pankaj) under section 125 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, learned court below has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicants respectively from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month as future maintenance. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Mohd. Hashan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is working as house keeping in M/s Sai Health Club 2316, Gautampuri Phase-1, Badarpur, New Delhi since the year 2002, his monthly earning is Rs. 7,000/- per month and in that situation it is not possible to pay Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance to the applicants which is beyond his earning capacity. He next submitted that learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants against strength of evidence on record, which is based on conjecture and surmises. He next submitted that no cogent reason has been assigned by the court below while awarding the exorbitant amount of maintenance which is made payable by the revisionist; the respondent no. 2 is B.A. qualified and she runs a beauty parlor from where she earns Rs. 30,000/- per month; the marriage of the revisionist with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 10.7.2018 at Gagan Vihar Molad, Badarpur, New Delhi; she left her matrimonial home just after one month of the marriage and since then she is living at her parental place situated at Chandausi, district Sambhal; she used to pick up quarrel with the revisionist; the revisionist was ousted from the house by his father and since then he is living at Badarpur, South Delhi; the affidavit filed by the revisionist in support of his earning has not been considered by the court below, wherein, it is specifically stated that he earns Rs. 7,000/- per month only; the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are residing separately from the revisionist without sufficient cause and therefore, they are not entitled to seek any maintenance from him. With above submission learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the quantum of maintenance fixed in the impugned order may be reduced substantially. The revisionist has stated in his evidence before the court below that the applicant was having some illicit relationship with one Sudhir, who is brother-in-law of her sister; he had himself caught them in objectionable state. He next submitted that the Sri Ram Prakash, father of the revisionist had issued a public notice of fact that he had disinherited his son Pankaj, his wife Arpita and his daughter Ananya from his property through publication in Delhi Newspaper Hindustan on 19.8.2020 and a copy of said publication has been filed as annexure to the affidavit. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisionist has multiple source of earning apart from working as house keeping in Gym; he possessed agriculture land of 20 bigha which is lying in the name of his father; the revisionist is having a house in Delhi; a daughter namely Ananya was born out from the wedlock of the parties, who is around two and half years at present; the respondent no. 2 was thrown out by the revisionist and his family members from the matrimonial home due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry after giving her beating by kicks and fists on 25.5.2022 and prior to that she was regularly harassed, tortured and subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the revisionist and his family members; the respondent no. 2 is not a working woman; she is not skilled to earn independently; the revisionist has neglected for maintenance to wife and minor daughter; monthly income of the revisionist from all sources is around Rs. 02 lakh; the respondent nos. 2 and 3 claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month in the maintenance petition. He next submitted that the recovery warrant has been issued for Rs. 1,33,332/- by the court below due to non compliance of impugned maintenance order. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisionist has stated in his affidavit that he lives in Faridabad, Haryana and pays Rs. 15,00/- per month as house rent whereas in present revision he has shown his address as House no. C-61, Sudharshan Park Model Band School Road, Mithapur Extension, Badarpur, South Delhi. He has admitted in his evidence that the litigation is drawn between him and his sister regarding property; his sister has filed a case against her father regarding share of his property; litigation is running between his brother and sister but he is also a party therein, therefore, learned court below has rightly drawn inference that the revisionist is also having share in said house. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he has come from Delhi by a car which belongs to one Mishra ji. Learned court below has rightly placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farukhi vs. Shahid Khan, 2015 (1) AAR 507 wherein it is held that wife is entitled to lead life upto standard which she was leading while residing at her matrimonial home alongwith her husband if the husband is healthy and able bodied person, he is under obligation to maintain his wife. He lastly submitted that the court below has rightly awarded maintenance against the revisionist in the impugned order on the basis of material and evidence on record. Learned court below has fixed amount of maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 1,500/- per month respectively and Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month as future maintenance in the impugned order considering the fact that the revisionist admittedly works as housekeeping in a Gym; his father has possessed agricultural land and the revisionist has a family house thus, the maintenance has been awarded keeping in view the alleged earning of the revisionist from his employment in Gym and also on the basis of financial ability of his father; the revisionist could not file any legal documents in support of his claim that his father has disinherited him from his property alongwith his sister except a publication made on behalf of his father in Delhi Newspaper. It appears that some litigation has been running between the revisionist and his brother on the one hand and the revisionist and his sister on the other hand regarding share of the property, this implies that the revisionist is still raising claim for share in the property of his father. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, evidence and material on record, I find no substantial, legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. However, looking into the fact that income of the revisionist has not been fixed by the court below, thus, some deduction is called for in quantum of future maintenance awarded to the applicant by the impugned order. Therefore, it is directed that the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 1 from the date of judgement is reduced from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 2 remains intact. The impugned order stands modified to this extent. The revision is partly allowed. Learned court below is directed to enforce the maintenance order if execution application is filed with regard to above modification in the impugned order. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 4.6.2024 passed by Principal Judge, family court, Sambhal situated at Chandausi in maintenance case no. 236 of 2022 (Smt. Arpita and another vs. Pankaj) under section 125 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, learned court below has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicants respectively from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month as future maintenance. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Mohd. Hashan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is working as house keeping in M/s Sai Health Club 2316, Gautampuri Phase-1, Badarpur, New Delhi since the year 2002, his monthly earning is Rs. 7,000/- per month and in that situation it is not possible to pay Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance to the applicants which is beyond his earning capacity. He next submitted that learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants against strength of evidence on record, which is based on conjecture and surmises. He next submitted that no cogent reason has been assigned by the court below while awarding the exorbitant amount of maintenance which is made payable by the revisionist; the respondent no. 2 is B.A. qualified and she runs a beauty parlor from where she earns Rs. 30,000/- per month; the marriage of the revisionist with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 10.7.2018 at Gagan Vihar Molad, Badarpur, New Delhi; she left her matrimonial home just after one month of the marriage and since then she is living at her parental place situated at Chandausi, district Sambhal; she used to pick up quarrel with the revisionist; the revisionist was ousted from the house by his father and since then he is living at Badarpur, South Delhi; the affidavit filed by the revisionist in support of his earning has not been considered by the court below, wherein, it is specifically stated that he earns Rs. 7,000/- per month only; the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are residing separately from the revisionist without sufficient cause and therefore, they are not entitled to seek any maintenance from him. With above submission learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the quantum of maintenance fixed in the impugned order may be reduced substantially. The revisionist has stated in his evidence before the court below that the applicant was having some illicit relationship with one Sudhir, who is brother-in-law of her sister; he had himself caught them in objectionable state. He next submitted that the Sri Ram Prakash, father of the revisionist had issued a public notice of fact that he had disinherited his son Pankaj, his wife Arpita and his daughter Ananya from his property through publication in Delhi Newspaper Hindustan on 19.8.2020 and a copy of said publication has been filed as annexure to the affidavit. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisionist has multiple source of earning apart from working as house keeping in Gym; he possessed agriculture land of 20 bigha which is lying in the name of his father; the revisionist is having a house in Delhi; a daughter namely Ananya was born out from the wedlock of the parties, who is around two and half years at present; the respondent no. 2 was thrown out by the revisionist and his family members from the matrimonial home due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry after giving her beating by kicks and fists on 25.5.2022 and prior to that she was regularly harassed, tortured and subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the revisionist and his family members; the respondent no. 2 is not a working woman; she is not skilled to earn independently; the revisionist has neglected for maintenance to wife and minor daughter; monthly income of the revisionist from all sources is around Rs. 02 lakh; the respondent nos. 2 and 3 claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month in the maintenance petition. He next submitted that the recovery warrant has been issued for Rs. 1,33,332/- by the court below due to non compliance of impugned maintenance order. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisionist has stated in his affidavit that he lives in Faridabad, Haryana and pays Rs. 15,00/- per month as house rent whereas in present revision he has shown his address as House no. C-61, Sudharshan Park Model Band School Road, Mithapur Extension, Badarpur, South Delhi. He has admitted in his evidence that the litigation is drawn between him and his sister regarding property; his sister has filed a case against her father regarding share of his property; litigation is running between his brother and sister but he is also a party therein, therefore, learned court below has rightly drawn inference that the revisionist is also having share in said house. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he has come from Delhi by a car which belongs to one Mishra ji. Learned court below has rightly placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farukhi vs. Shahid Khan, 2015 (1) AAR 507 wherein it is held that wife is entitled to lead life upto standard which she was leading while residing at her matrimonial home alongwith her husband if the husband is healthy and able bodied person, he is under obligation to maintain his wife. He lastly submitted that the court below has rightly awarded maintenance against the revisionist in the impugned order on the basis of material and evidence on record. Learned court below has fixed amount of maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 1,500/- per month respectively and Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month as future maintenance in the impugned order considering the fact that the revisionist admittedly works as housekeeping in a Gym; his father has possessed agricultural land and the revisionist has a family house thus, the maintenance has been awarded keeping in view the alleged earning of the revisionist from his employment in Gym and also on the basis of financial ability of his father; the revisionist could not file any legal documents in support of his claim that his father has disinherited him from his property alongwith his sister except a publication made on behalf of his father in Delhi Newspaper. It appears that some litigation has been running between the revisionist and his brother on the one hand and the revisionist and his sister on the other hand regarding share of the property, this implies that the revisionist is still raising claim for share in the property of his father. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, evidence and material on record, I find no substantial, legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. However, looking into the fact that income of the revisionist has not been fixed by the court below, thus, some deduction is called for in quantum of future maintenance awarded to the applicant by the impugned order. Therefore, it is directed that the amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 1 from the date of judgement is reduced from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 2 remains intact. The impugned order stands modified to this extent. The revision is partly allowed. Learned court below is directed to enforce the maintenance order if execution application is filed with regard to above modification in the impugned order. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad