Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 632 of 2018 Revisionist :- Adhesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly dated 27.11.2017, by which the said Court has provided for monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 3,000/- to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 from the date of application, which is 22.5.2014. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite parties did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of their claim as to the income of the applicant and that the applicant was earning as a manual labourer.
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the opposite parties had disclosed before the Court below that the applicant was engaged in a private job and that in addition thereto he was doing some agricultural activity. From such activities the applicant was claimed to be earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
The witnesses of the opposite party were also cross-examined by the applicant. In that regard, learned Court below has observed that no contradiction emerged during such cross-examination. Moreover, the applicant himself did not lead any documentary or other evidence to establish his lack of earning capacity.
Considering the aforesaid circumstance, the total award of maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month does not appear to be excessive or arbitrary. It appears to be a reasonable estimate made by learned Court below, keeping in mind the nature and extent of evidence led by the parties and ever increasing cost of living index.
Then, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the award of maintenance allowance should have been made from the date of the order and not the date of the application.
Insofar as the order has been made for payment of maintenance amount from the date of application, I do not find any error in the same in view of the fact that the application had been filed by the opposite party, which ought to have been decided within a period of 60 days from that date. However, the same has been decided more than 43 months from the date when such application was filed.
The opposite parties have not received any amount towards maintenance as had been claimed by them and which under law, they were entitled to. Also, even upon amount as claimed becoming payable they have not become entitled to any interest for the inordinate delay. The cost of such delay, if at all has to be borne by one party, it has to be the applicant herein and not the opposite parties/claimant especially, when the law created an expectation for the application to be decided within sixty days of it being filed. Therefore, in my view the award of the maintenance from the date of application does not suffer from any infirmity.
Admittedly, about Rs. 2,15,000/- is outstanding against the applicant, from the date of application to the date of order. Insofar as the applicant has prayed for time to make good the deficiency of deposit, looking into the facts it does appear that the ends of justice would be met, if the applicant is allowed some time to make such deposit.
Accordingly, the instant revision is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The applicant shall abide by the order dated 27.11.2017 and shall make timely deposit of monthly maintenance allowance to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 for the month of March, 2018 onwards.
2. Insofar as the interim maintenance allowance from December 2017 to February, 2018 is concerned, if the same has not been deposited till date, the same shall be deposited by the applicant before the court below by 15.03.2018.
3. The arrears of maintenance allowance for the period from the date of application till the date of order shall be deposited by the applicant in four bi- monthly instalments, such installments being payable on or before 31.3.2018, 31.5.2018, 31.7.2018 and 29.7.2018 respectively. The first three installments would be of Rs. 50,000/- each. While the fourht/last installment would be for the balance amount.
Subject to such deposits being continued to be made within time as indicated above, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant till the next installment falls due. The amount so deposited by the applicant shall be released to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 forthwith.
However, it is made clear that in the event of failure on part of the applicant to comply with any part of the order, at any stage/date, all coercive measures be revived from that stage, without any further reference to this Court.
Disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Mini