Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 219 of 2018 Revisionist :- Gyan Varshneya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajnish Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
It is reported that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the present revision which has been explained on account of the fact that the applicant had approached wrong forum by filing a 482 Cr.P.C. application against the impugned order.
Cause shown is sufficient. Delay is condoned. Office to allot a regular number to this appeal.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras in Case No. 127 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Hathras by which the application filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2, @ Rs. 2,500/- each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 has been awarded from the date of that order.
Learned counsel for the applicant has made two fold submission. First it has been submitted that the applicant is mentally ill and is dependent on his father for his own survival. It is therefore submitted that the award of monthly maintenance allowance made against the applicant is vitiated.
Perusal of the written objections filed by the applicant to the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. reveals that the said reply runs into 24 paragraphs. The applicant had in his objections had principally objected to the entitlement of the opposite party no. 2 to maintenance owing to her conduct and behaviour and had also denied the allegations made against him by the said opposite party. Only in paragraph 22 of the objections a brief reference has been made to his own illness. It had been thus stated that the applicant is suffering from depression.
In support of the aforesaid pleading, certain documents of treatment received by the applicant have been annexed with the affidavit in support of the present revision. These documents are stated to have been filed before the learned court below by way of evidence.
Perusal of those documents only reveals that the applicant has been receiving some treatment from a psychiatrist and he is being administered some drugs, orally. While the nature of the illness is not established or apparent from the perusal of those documents, even one discharge slip as has been annexed by way of evidence reveals hospitalization for a brief period from 22.09.2010 to 29.10.2010.
Thus, it cannot be said that the applicant is suffering from a medical condition such that he is not able to take care of himself or would not be in a position to provide maintenance allowance to the opposite parties. The order of the learned court below does not warrant any interference in the present revision, on that count.
Then, it has been submitted that the applicant does not have any income such that he may be able to provide for a monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month (in all) to the opposite parties.
In this regard, learned court below had decided issue nos. 3 and 4 together wherein it had taken note of the evidence led by opposite party no. 2 wherein she stated that applicant is the only son of his parents and that there are various immovable properties belonging to the said family at Hathras, Delhi and Ghaziabad etc. In addition to the above, the opposite party had stated that the applicant supplies milk, butter and cottage cheese to a dairy from which his estimated income is about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Additionally, the applicant's rental income has been estimated at Rs. 30,000/- per month. It has been also estimated that that the applicant derives income from interest etc.
Further, the opposite party had led various documentary evidence in the shape of agreement (paper no. 15B/2 and 15B/6) establishing business engagement by the applicant. One of such documents is an agreement to sell and another is an agreement for payment of earnest money. Documents evidencing payment of property tax etc., a receipt of Rs. 1,20,000/- paid by the applicant as also copies of the Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2005-06 and other statements indicating substantial income of the applicant as also certain investments made by the applicant were also led in evidence.
As against the above estimation made by the learned court below, no evidence has been brought on record such as may go to show that the findings recorded by the learned court below are either perverse or based on exaggeration of facts. Having consider the aforesaid documents and financial status of the applicant, the learned court below then estimated the income of the applicant at Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.
Nothing has been shown as may suggest that the estimation of income and financial means of the applicant by the learned court below is either perverse or excessive or arbitrary. The same is accordingly sustained.
Thus, the amounts of maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 and @ Rs. 2,500/- each to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 is not such as may appear to be either excessive or arbitrary, keeping in mind, the financial and social status of the parties as has been established before the learned court below, keeping in mind the ever rising cost of living index.
Accordingly, the present revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 A. Singh