Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12856 of 2021 Applicant :- Vipin Jadaun @ Babbar Baan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra,Grijesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has challenged order dated 31.03.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 416 of 2020 (Smt. Sharda Vs. Vipin) by Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra whereby the opposite party nos.2 and 3 were awarded interim maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an employee in a private company as such, he has limited means and is unable to provide interim maintenance allowance fixed by the court to his wife from the date of the application. The court below has not assigned any reason for granting interim maintenance allowance from the date of application. Impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eyes of law. The amount of interim maintenance as awarded to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is, too, excessive.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife and opposite party no.3 is his minor daughter of the 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 and her daughter 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 and daughter.
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 above,present criminal application lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2021/MN/-