Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2866 of 2014 Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nrapendra Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Case is called out. None is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.
The present criminal revision has been moved against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.07.2014 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad, in Case No. 135 of 2014 (Smt. Rani Pandey Vs. Pramod Pandey) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Firozabad North, District-Firozabad, directing the revisionist-opposite party no.2, Pramod Kumar Pandey to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of order to the opposite party no.2, Smt. Rani Pandey.
The matter was sent for mediation vide order of this Court dated 11.11.2014. There is report of mediation centre dated 24.03.2015 to the effect that the parties appeared before it but they were not willing for mediation. Thus the mediation between the parties failed.
Heard learned A.G.A. for opposite parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the revisionist-applicant, who is an able bodied person. An able-bodied person has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be reasonably able to maintain his wife and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. No cogent grounds have been canvassed as to why such able bodied person is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 702 has observed as under:-
'It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.'
In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.
Present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly revision is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 MN/-