Heard Shri Sonu Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Jay Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli in Maintenance Case No. 451/2016 Rabia Begum V. Mohd. Taskeen), by which the learned court below has partly allowed the application of the opposite party no.2 moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and also directed the revisionist to pay the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of order.
Learned counsel for the revisionist while referring to the judgement and order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareili submits that the court below has not taken into account the fact that the revisionist has obtained employment in dying-in-harness and therefore, he is parting his salary with his two brothers and therefore, he is not in a position to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2.
It is further submitted that the trial court has also materially erred in holding that the revisionist is having sufficient means to maintain the opposite party no.2 and thus having regard to the salary of the revisionist payment of Rs.7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 is on higher side and in any case the same could not be paid by the revisionist.
It is also submitted that the trial court has disregarded the evidence produced by the revisionist with regard to the fact that the opposite party no.2 is an educated lady and is earning about Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month by giving tuition to the students and thus the order awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 is on higher side and the same be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that apart from the maintenance allowance directed to be paid to the opposite party no.2 by the court below, she is not having any other source of income and she is not earning any money from any other source and the revisionist is having sufficient means as he is earning Rs.51,168/- per month and therefore, the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month is not on higher side. It is also submitted that the defence of the revisionist that he has to part his salary with his two brothers is absolutely false and could not be believed as two brothers of the revisionist are major and they are earning their livelihood themselves and could not be said to be dependent on the revisionist.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the trial court has framed the following four points in order to dispose of the maintenance application moved by the opposite party no.2:
1. Whether the opposite party no.2 is the wife of the revisionist?
2. Whether the opposite party no.2 is living separately without any sufficient reason?
3. Whether the opposite party no.2 is not capable of maintaining herself?
4. Whether revisionist is having sufficient means?
The perusal of the record would reveal that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the opposite party no.2 is a legally wedded wife of the revisionist and thus there appears no illegality in the conclusion of the trial court with regard to that. With regard to the second point, the trial court after analyzing and appreciating the evidence produced by the parties has come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is having sufficient reasons to reside separately from the revisionist. I have gone through the evidence discussed by the trial court as well as the conclusions drawn and I am of the considered view that no illegality or material irregularity appears to have been committed by the trial court in this regard and in the considered opinion of this Court, the opposite party no.2 was having sufficient reasons to reside separately.
So far as the third point is concerned, no evidence has been produced before the trial court by the revisionist with regard to the fact that as to whether the opposite party no.2 is taking tuition or is earning anything, therefore, there was no material or evidence before the trial court on the basis of which it can be presumed or found proved that the opposite party no.2 is having income of her own. The trial court has also observed that though the allegation has been made that the opposite party no.2 has passed M.A., but no proof of the same has been produced on record and in absence of the same it could not be presumed that the opposite party no.2 is capable of earning her own livelihood, thus in the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality in this regard has been committed by the trial court.
With regard to the point no.4 pertaining to the sufficiency of the means possessed by the revisionist, admittedly the revisionist is having an employment and no dispute has been made either before the trial court or before this Court pertaining to the salary slip of the revisionist produced at page 30 of the paper book. The perusal of the salary slip would show that the gross salary of the revisionist is Rs.51,168/- and after deductions carrying home salary is Rs.33,178/-. The explanation of the revisionist with regard to the fact that his salary is being shared by his two brothers is not believable and the trial court has rightly not believed the same as both the brothers of the revisionist are major and they are capable of earning their own livelihood.
Having regard to the salary drawn by the revisionist, the trial court was of the view that Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of order would be a reasonable maintenance amount, which could be paid by the revisionist to the opposite party no.2.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, when the revisionist is not having any liability and the whole salary is drawn and kept by him awarding of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife could not be said to be on higher side. In the considered opinion of this court, the maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month, that too from the date of order, the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record is justified and no illegality or to say any material irregularity appears to have been committed by the trial court. Thus the revision appears without any merits and substance and the same is dismissed.
A copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial court.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Anupam S/-