Smt. Uma Devi v. Addl. Principal Judge Iv Family Court Lucknow And Anr

2. Heard Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-4, Family Court, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 209-C/ 2006 (Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma), whereby application No. Kha-3 moved on behalf of applicant herein (wife) for enhancing maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month, has been partly allowed to the extent of grant of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in which after adducing of evidence by both the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow vide its order dated 01.05.2000 had directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 450/- per month as monthly maintenance w.e.f. 16.09.1997 to 30.04.2000 and Rs. 500/- w.e.f. 01.05.2000. Learned counsel further argued that by efflux of 2 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 time, when Rs. 500/- per month was not sufficient for the survival of applicant and as such the applicant moved an application dated

16.11.2006 under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 5000/- along with Rs. 5000/- as expenses. Learned counsel further argued that the aforesaid application for enhancement of maintenance amount was kept pending by the learned Family Court, therefore the applicant under the constrained circumstances had filed a petition seeking direction for the learned Family Court for expeditious disposal of the application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., being Misc. Single No. 5101 of 2012 (Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Principal Judge Family Court, Lucknow and another) and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2012 had directed the learned Family Court to decide the application expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before it. Thereafter, the order dated 17.09.2012 was duly served before the concerned learned Family Court, but inspite of the same the same was not decided till May 2018, as such the applicant again preferred a petition being Misc. Single No. 15614 of 2018 (Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow), which petition was disposed of with the direction to the learned Family Court to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Again when the same was not decided the applicant filed a petition being Misc. Single No. 26530 of 2019 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the entire orders passed in the previous petitions called for the explanation from the concerned Principal Judge through concerned A.G.A. vide order dated

25.09.2019. Learned counsel next argued that thereafter, the learned Family Court vide order dated 25.10.2019 has allowed the said application under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., marked as Kha-3, by which the maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- per month has been enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month. Learned counsel next argued that the application for enhancement of maintenance amount was filed on 16.11.2006, which has been decided after a lapse of more than 13 years when this Court issued direction time to time. Learned counsel further argued that learned Family Court without considering and assessing the income of the opposite party no.2 has granted meager amount of maintenance which is not sufficient 3 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 for the applicant to meet her livelihood for day today affairs considering the hike in the price of commodities, etc. Learned counsel next has also drawn attention of this Court to the bank statement account of the opposite party No. 2 to demonstrate that the opposite party no.2 is receiving monthly pension of Rs. 20,768/-. Thus, it has been argued that without considering the entire facts and evidence on record and on the basis of wrong findings and evidence, the court concerned has passed the impugned order, enhancing maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to be paid to the applicant. It has also been tried to place criticism against the impugned order on various other grounds touching upon the factual as well as legal aspects of the matter.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and contended that the applicant has liberty to move fresh and appropriate application for enhancement of her monthly maintenance allowance, as has been awarded by the court concerned, thus, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.

6. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance. The applicant has been awarded a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month in the year 2000, which amount cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate in those days, but in these days that amount cannot be said to be a proportionate amount in these days of high price rise. Under the changed circumstances the applicant moves an the year 2006 for application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. enhancement of awarded monthly maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- but the said application remains pending for a long period of thirteen years for one reason or the other and ultimately it has been decided by the impugned order, by which the applicant has been awarded Rs. 1000/- as enhanced amount of monthly maintenance, that too, when the applicant approaches thrice to this Court by filing writ petitions for its expeditious disposal. This Court also takes note of the fact that the court 4 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 concerned while passing the impugned order has not considered the current income of the opposite party No. 2. The statement of account of the opposite party No. 2 as has been annexed at page-41 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application also demonstrates that in the month of September, 2019 the opposite party No. 2 had received monthly pension of Rs. 20,768/- at that time.

8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as coupled with the fact that applicant was awarded monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- in the year 2000. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which application remains pending for thirteen years and it was ultimately considered and decided vide impugned order dated 25.10.2019, without considering and assessing the current income of the opposite party No. 2.

9. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as after going through the record including the bank statement of the opposite party no.2, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 is set aside with the direction to the applicant to move fresh and appropriate application in accordance with law along with a certified copy of this order, for redressal of her grievance annexing all the relevant documents with respect to the current income of the opposite party No. 2 within 15 days from today before the concerned Family Court. In case, such application is moved within the period as stipulated above, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of next three months by the concerned Family Court, preferably, if possible on day to day basis.

11. It is expected from the concerned Family Court that in case such application is moved by the applicant, the same shall considered and decided in view of settled law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in 2021 (2) SCC

12. It is further made clear that the opposite party no.2 shall continue to 5 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 pay the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 1000/- per month till final outcome of the fresh application moved by the applicant as enumerated above. December 9, 2025 Mustaqeem (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-4, Family Court, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 209-C/ 2006 (Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma), whereby application No. Kha-3 moved on behalf of applicant herein (wife) for enhancing maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month, has been partly allowed to the extent of grant of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in which after adducing of evidence by both the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow vide its order dated 01.05.2000 had directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs. 450/- per month as monthly maintenance w.e.f. 16.09.1997 to 30.04.2000 and Rs. 500/- w.e.f. 01.05.2000. Learned counsel further argued that by efflux of 2 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 time, when Rs. 500/- per month was not sufficient for the survival of applicant and as such the applicant moved an application dated

16.11.2006 under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 5000/- along with Rs. 5000/- as expenses. Learned counsel further argued that the aforesaid application for enhancement of maintenance amount was kept pending by the learned Family Court, therefore the applicant under the constrained circumstances had filed a petition seeking direction for the learned Family Court for expeditious disposal of the application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., being Misc. Single No. 5101 of 2012 (Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Principal Judge Family Court, Lucknow and another) and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2012 had directed the learned Family Court to decide the application expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before it. Thereafter, the order dated 17.09.2012 was duly served before the concerned learned Family Court, but inspite of the same the same was not decided till May 2018, as such the applicant again preferred a petition being Misc. Single No. 15614 of 2018 (Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow), which petition was disposed of with the direction to the learned Family Court to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Again when the same was not decided the applicant filed a petition being Misc. Single No. 26530 of 2019 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the entire orders passed in the previous petitions called for the explanation from the concerned Principal Judge through concerned A.G.A. vide order dated

25.09.2019. Learned counsel next argued that thereafter, the learned Family Court vide order dated 25.10.2019 has allowed the said application under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., marked as Kha-3, by which the maintenance amount of Rs. 500/- per month has been enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month. Learned counsel next argued that the application for enhancement of maintenance amount was filed on 16.11.2006, which has been decided after a lapse of more than 13 years when this Court issued direction time to time. Learned counsel further argued that learned Family Court without considering and assessing the income of the opposite party no.2 has granted meager amount of maintenance which is not sufficient 3 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 for the applicant to meet her livelihood for day today affairs considering the hike in the price of commodities, etc. Learned counsel next has also drawn attention of this Court to the bank statement account of the opposite party No. 2 to demonstrate that the opposite party no.2 is receiving monthly pension of Rs. 20,768/-. Thus, it has been argued that without considering the entire facts and evidence on record and on the basis of wrong findings and evidence, the court concerned has passed the impugned order, enhancing maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to be paid to the applicant. It has also been tried to place criticism against the impugned order on various other grounds touching upon the factual as well as legal aspects of the matter.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and contended that the applicant has liberty to move fresh and appropriate application for enhancement of her monthly maintenance allowance, as has been awarded by the court concerned, thus, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.

6. I have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance. The applicant has been awarded a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month in the year 2000, which amount cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate in those days, but in these days that amount cannot be said to be a proportionate amount in these days of high price rise. Under the changed circumstances the applicant moves an the year 2006 for application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. enhancement of awarded monthly maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- but the said application remains pending for a long period of thirteen years for one reason or the other and ultimately it has been decided by the impugned order, by which the applicant has been awarded Rs. 1000/- as enhanced amount of monthly maintenance, that too, when the applicant approaches thrice to this Court by filing writ petitions for its expeditious disposal. This Court also takes note of the fact that the court 4 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 concerned while passing the impugned order has not considered the current income of the opposite party No. 2. The statement of account of the opposite party No. 2 as has been annexed at page-41 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application also demonstrates that in the month of September, 2019 the opposite party No. 2 had received monthly pension of Rs. 20,768/- at that time.

8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as coupled with the fact that applicant was awarded monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- in the year 2000. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which application remains pending for thirteen years and it was ultimately considered and decided vide impugned order dated 25.10.2019, without considering and assessing the current income of the opposite party No. 2.

9. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as after going through the record including the bank statement of the opposite party no.2, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 is set aside with the direction to the applicant to move fresh and appropriate application in accordance with law along with a certified copy of this order, for redressal of her grievance annexing all the relevant documents with respect to the current income of the opposite party No. 2 within 15 days from today before the concerned Family Court. In case, such application is moved within the period as stipulated above, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of next three months by the concerned Family Court, preferably, if possible on day to day basis.

11. It is expected from the concerned Family Court that in case such application is moved by the applicant, the same shall considered and decided in view of settled law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in 2021 (2) SCC

12. It is further made clear that the opposite party no.2 shall continue to 5 A482 No. 2456 of 2020 pay the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 1000/- per month till final outcome of the fresh application moved by the applicant as enumerated above. December 9, 2025 Mustaqeem (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench