Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 972 of 2020 Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Shyam Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Ms. Shalu Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist being aggrieved of order dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No.105 of 2017 (Smt. Sushila Devi and Others vs. Ashok Kumar Sahu), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
3. Vide impugned judgment, learned Family Court has awarded a sum of maintanance @ Rs.2,000/- per child totaling Rs.6,000/- in favour of minor children till the date of their attaining majority.
4. Ms. Shalu Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a labourer. He has categorically mentioned in his written statement which was filed before the learned Family Court that he is not having sufficient means to maintain his wife and children and in fact wife has captured all of his ancestral and personal property in the village and she is deriving benefits from such property. It is submitted that revisionist is also not liable to pay any maintenance as he has bone fide doubts as to the paternity to the children, in relation to which, maintenance has been sought.
5. However, the fact is that revisionist's remedy to challenge the paternity of the children lies elsewhere and not before this Court in a criminal revision. In a criminal revision, this Court is required to see the entitlement of the children to receive maintenance from their father and whether father has sufficient means to provide that maintenance or not.
6. There is no whisper of disclosure as to the income of the revisionist. In his written statement, he has nowhere mentioned anything about either his vocation or income.
7. Ms. Shalu Singh strenuously submits that he is a labourer staying away from home. Even if that statement is believed to be correct, then also the fact is that there is a presumption of a labourer drawing minimum wages and, therefore, taking four units to be the part of the family of the revisionist, namely, the revisionist himself and three minor children, then in view of minimum wages prevalent and executed by the State Government, maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per child totaling Rs.6,000/- for three children cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary, there is no illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference.
8. Therefore, revision fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Ravi/-