Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1261 of 2021 Revisionist :- Lalchand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for revisionist/petitioner and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the husband being aggrieved of order dated 11.01.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia whereby it has enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the order.
3. Learned counsel for revisionist/petitioner submits that petitioner is a labourer. He is aged about 70 years. He has no source of income and therefore, a compassionate view be taken to give him some relief.
4. Learned AGA, reading from the order, submits that it has come on record that Lalchand had executed a sale deed contained in Khasra No. 562 measuring 0.1578 hectare for the Express Way Project for a sum of Rs. 31,56,000/- (thirty one lakhs fifty six thousand rupees), out of which, petitioner- Lalchand has 50% share in the property.
5. It is further submitted that he has admitted his income from agricultural operations @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is submitted that it has also come on record that Lalchand has several properties within the jurisdiction of Janpad-Mau and several parcel of lands are registered in his name or he is one of the joint owners of them. Taking this Court to such material, it is submitted that petitioner is a man of sufficient means to discharge his liability for payment of amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Judge.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., on proof of a change in circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 125, a monthly allowance for maintenance or interim maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, or interim maintenance to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he thinks fit in the allowances for maintenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.
7. The whole emphasis is on change in the circumstances. There is no denial of the fact that after earlier award of maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- vide order dated 30.03.2012, there has been change of circumstances, inasmuch as, it has come on record that on 03.09.2016, present petitioner had executed a registered deed of sale in favour of Express Way Project for a sum of Rs. 31,56,000/- (thirty one lakhs fifty six thousand rupees). There is no rebuttal to the fact that petitioner is holding several plots either singly or jointly in the District of Mau. Thus, taking into consideration financial status of the petitioner, wife of the petitioner is entitled to commensurate maintenance amount, especially, keeping in mind the status of the petitioner and also the rate of inflation, which is galloping like a wild horse.
8. In view of such facts and also that petitioner has failed to rebut receiving of compensation of 50% of the amount of Rs. 31,56,000/- (thirty one lakhs fifty six thousand rupees), this Court is of the opinion that no ground is made out for interfering in the impugned order. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Vikram/-