Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2203 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ankur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of UP and perused the record.
The instant Criminal Revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1425 of 2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby application dated 13.11.2018 under section 125 Cr.P.C. of the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4 has been allowed directing the revisionist (husband) to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- to the opposite party no. 2 (wife), an amount of Rs.1000/- to his son/opposite party no.3 and Rs.1000/- to his daughter/opposite party no.4 per month towards maintenance from the date of presentation of the application on the tenth day of each month. It has also been observed that in case, any amount as an interim maintenance has already been paid, the same shall be adjusted accordingly.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly has committed legal error in awarding maintenance from the date of application, but after advancing his argument at some length, when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.03.2021 on merit and confined his submission praying to grant some reasonable time to the revisionist, so that he may deposit the entire arrears of amount in instalments.
Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the said prayer of the learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.03.2021. The grounds taken by the revisionist challenging the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 are not sustainable under the law.
After having heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels it appropriate that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this application pending before this Court and the same may be disposed of at this stage itself. Though after some argument the revisionist is not pressing the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 on merit, but considering the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the amount awarded is not only meagre one, but also insufficient for opposite party No. 2 to support herself and her two minor children (opposite party nos. 3 and 4). It is the duty and responsibility of the husband to look after the welfare of his wife and child. It is extremely difficult to conceive that a women with her minor son and daughter would be in a position to maintain them with the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is far amelioration of financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that women suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home along with her child. The plea advanced on behalf of the revisionist (husband) that he does not have the money to pay is only a bald excuse and has no acceptability in law. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh versus Neha and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020, the maintenance has been rightly granted to the opposite parties no 2, 3 and 4 from the date of presentation of application under section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court feels that no interference is required in the impugned order dated 16.3.2021, as under the facts of the case, the same does not suffer from any illegality. The relief as sought by the revisionist in the instant case is hereby refused.
However considering the alternative prayer of the revisionist, six months time is allowed to him to pay the entire amount of arrears of maintenance from 13.11.2018 to November 2021 to opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 if any, in three equal instalments. First, second and third instalments shall be paid on 13 January 2022, 13 March 2022 and 13 May 2022. It is made clear that if any amount has already been paid by the revisionist, the same shall be adjusted accordingly. Further the currant amount of maintenance from the month of December 2021 to onwards shall be paid by the revisionist as per judgment and order dated 16.03.2021.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant Criminal Revision is disposed of.
It is clarified that in case of default of payment of maintenance as directed above, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.
Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned court below as well as to the opposite party no.2 within ten days.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Sunil Kr. Gupta