Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 941 of 2018 Revisionist :- Devdatta Opposite Party :- Israwati And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Present revision has been filed against the order dated 16.12.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. II, Additional Family Court, Basti, in Case No.1040/11/2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Walterganj, District Basti, by which maintenance allowance @ Rs.1,500/- to opposite party no.2, and @ Rs.1,000/- to opposite party no.3, has been awarded from the date of this order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the one hand, opposite party no.2 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and on the other hand, the amount of maintenance allowance is wholly excessive and arbitrary, considering the fact that there was no documentary evidence to establish that the applicant had sufficient earnings to be able to provide for the monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- (in all).
Having heard the learned A.G.A. for the State and having perused the record, I find that with respect to marriage between the parties, the learned court has found that name of the opposite party no.2 is found recorded in the Family Register of the applicant, as his wife. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had disputed the correctness of the family register and had also filed a civil suit for declaration of the marriage as null and void being suit no.414 of 2000. However, it is admitted that said civil suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, though an application for restoration of the same is stated to be still pending.
In view of the above facts, at present, for the purpose of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which are summary in nature and which provisions have to be given effect to preserve human life and dignity and to prevent vagrancy, there is no reason to disallow the claim made by the opposite parties for maintenance allowance from the applicant when on the basis of evidence that was led by the parties, the applicant has been rightly found to be the husband of opposite party no.2. To that extent, the order passed by the learned court below does not suffer from any infirmity. It is sustained.
As to the amount of monthly maintenance allowance, fixed by the learned court below, it is seen that though the opposite parties have not been able to lead any direct evidence to establish any particular level of earning or income of the applicant, however, it is undisputed that the applicant is an able bodied person. Even if he were to work as manual labourer on daily wages, it may be expected that he would be able to earn Rs.350-450 per day. At that rate, his monthly income may be assumed or estimated at Rs.10,000/- per month.
The award of total monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- per month being @ Rs.1,500/- to opposite party no.2 and @ Rs.1,000/- to opposite party no.3, is wholly just and proper. It is neither excessive nor arbitrary.
However, the learned court below has assumed that even if the applicant were to earn Rs.105-200 per day, it would be sufficient to be able to provide for the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500/-.
Then it is also to be considered that order passed by learned court below has been made effective from the date of order and not the date of the application which appears to be of the year, 2014.
In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Shalini