Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 193 of 2018 Revisionist :- Heera Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mr Ajay Dubey,Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed for enhancement of the amount of maintenance ordered by the Judge, Family Court/ Fast Track Court No.-1, Agra in its order dated 25th October, 2017 disposing of the maintenance Case No.- 345 of 2006 (Smt. Heera Devi v. Narottam) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Police Station- Rakabganj, District- Agra.
The grievance of the applicant is that amount that has been awarded as maintenance is a very less one and it should be enhanced at least to Rs.20,000/-. The ground taken for enhancement of the maintenance amount is that the applicant is not able to maintain herself and for survival the amount being Rs.7,500/- too less and it is, therefore, liable to be enhanced.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the applicant has not brought any evidence on record to demonstrate as to what exactly is the income of the opposite party No.2, according to her, so that it can be held that the findings returned by the court below is perverse and liable to be altered.
Having gone through the judgment of the court below, I find that the court has recorded a finding to the effect that the applicant is having well built up body and is a qualified person and the fact that the applicant has possessed of sufficient means for survival and is living a standard life. The court below concluded that the Rs.7,500/- will be a respective amount which can be given to the applicant as maintenance. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate as to what exactly is the income of the opposite party No.2, there does not arise any question of enhancement of maintenance already awarded. Merely because someone is possessed sufficient means for survival and is living standard life does not mean that he can be forced to give larger amount of his income towards maintenance. No hypothetical analysis can be made of the financial means of a person so as to make an award beyond a reasonable limit. In the opinion of the Court, Rs.7,500/- is sufficient amount in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the opposite party No.2 was earning a huge income and that court below manifestly erred in awarding maintenance amount. Thus, the finding so returned by the court below cannot be held to be perverse in absence of evidence to the contrary.
The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
It is open for the court below to proceed in accordance with law in the event the opposite party No.2 has not paid any amount of maintenance pursuant to the order dated 25th October, 2017.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Atmesh