Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 857 of 2016 Revisionist :- Satya Narayan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for opposite parties are present.
The present criminal revision has been moved against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.1.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, in Case No. 513 of 2014 (Smt. Shivakant and Another Vs. Staya Narayan) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Auraiya, District- Auraiya. Further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid judgment has also been made. By the impugned judgment and order the revisionist has been ordered to pay maintenance of Rs. 2400/- per month (Rs. 1800/- to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 600/- to opposite party no.3).
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that the revisionist-applicant is working as a guard, as such, he has limited means and is unable to provide maintenance fixed by the court to his wife and as such, impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eyes of law being too excessive.
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 :- 28.7.2021 S.Verma