The Allahabad High Court while allowing a petition said that it is almost impossible for a woman who belongs to a middle class family, to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs 2500.
A Single Bench of Justice Manohar Narayan Mishra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Shilpy Sharma.
The criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Additional Family Court/FTC in Maintenance Case under Section 125 CrPC, whereby an interim maintenance of Rs 2,500 per month has been awarded to the revisionist.
The revisionist is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded to her and payable by the respondent. The revisionist has submitted that she resides in district Chandauli (UP), whereas her husband Rahul Sharma is a resident of district Ghaziabad.
She has filed the revision with prayer for enhancement of maintenance from Rs 2,500 per month as has been awarded by the court below to substantial extent on the basis of prima facie facts produced by the revisionist, and the amount to be awarded to the revisionist should be effective from the date of filing of application i.e 01.09.2014, so that she may be able to live in the same status, as she was accustomed to live when she was residing with her husband.
Her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 23.01.2007 at Baradhar Kaka Nagar, New Delhi and she was ousted from her matrimonial on 18.09.2007 from Jivan Apartment Vasundhara, Ghaziabad.
She further submitted that she has no independent source of income, hence she has filed an application for interim maintenance on 01.09.2014 in maintenance Case, wherein she prayed for grant of maintenance from the date of application. However, the court below awarded a meagre sum of maintenance to the tune of Rs 2,500 per month that too from the date of order i.e 07.09.2016.
Inasmuch as the Court below has not awarded any amount as cost of litigation and prevailing expenditure incurred by the revisionist to attend the court proceedings.
She is entitled to get maintenance as per requirements and equal to the financial status of the husband, but the court below has failed to consider this aspect of the matter.
The Court noted that,
On perusal of record it appears that conduct of the respondent was objectionable from inception of the impugned order and he always avoided to pay even a paltry sum of interim maintenance awarded in the impugned order on regular basis. The Court by the order dated 27.02.2017 passed an interim order to the effect that perusal of the earlier order dated 01.12.2016 shows that the revision has been filed for enhancement of the interim maintenance from Rs 2,500 to Rs 5,000 awarded by the court below on the ground that income of the husband- respondent is Rs 5 lakh per month, and notice has been issued to the opposite party- husband returnable within a period of four weeks.
However, the respondent did not comply the interim order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the court in the revision and used to pay interim maintenance to the revisionist at the rate of Rs 2,500 per month which is impugned in the revision.
Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent for non-compliance of the interim order passed by the Court, the revisionist filed Contempt Application and was granted one more opportunity to comply with the order dated 27.02.2017, on the condition that the opposite party shall deposit the difference of dues of the amount of Rs 2,500 up till 30.06.2019 in the court below. The said amount shall remain deposited and shall not be released and shall be subject to any further order that may be passed by the Court or by the Revisional Court.
The trial court observed in the impugned order that applicant has stated that the monthly income of opposite party (husband) is around Rs 4 lakh per month. The father of the applicant retired as JCO from Indian Army and did not able to maintain the applicant on his meager resources. Whereas the opposite party has claimed that he had reduced to the stage of starvation due to non-payment of salary, and the applicant is earning around Rs 50,000 per month from different sources. The evidence of the parties is liable to be come on issue of maintenance and the case will be disposed of after tendering of evidence by both the sides. Therefore in the opinion of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to pay Rs 2,500 per month to the applicant as interim maintenance to the applicant which will be payable by the opposite parties.
The Court further noted that,
From the perusal of the written arguments filed by the revisionist and other material on record it appears that the claim of the respondents that he has to maintain his family members, is not substantiated with record. His father is a retired Government Officer. His brother Manish Sharma has shown himself as to have belonged to upper middle class family in his facebook account and has shown himself as a professional, and his said annual income is Rs 4 to Rs 5 lakh. The respondent had shown himself in his facebook status as Engineer in Sahara Samay, interested in women, current location in home town New Delhi. He has added advertisement on matrimonial site as divorcee. During the pendency of divorce petition which was dismissed by the family court and appeal of the respondent is pending before the Court. The divorce petition was dismissed on 25.03.2014 and according to the respondent he had paid entire dues towards cost of litigation fixed by the court Rs 6,000 per month upto 01.08.2008 to 25.03.2014 which came to Rs 3,78,000. The case of respondent No 2 does not prima facie come within the purview of proviso (4) to Section 125 CrPC, as claimed by him.
“On the basis of material on record it cannot be held at present that she refused to live with her husband on her own sweet will they are living separately by mutual consent, or she left her husband without any sufficient reason. He has stated in his written argument dated 06.07.2017 that he is jobless. The calculation sheet of the expenditure of the respondent given by the revisionist is based on certain documents filed by the respondent in divorce case and on that basis she had calculated his approximate monthly income as Rs 4,09,118. She has also filed his bank statements and income tax returns, but all these documents relates to the period when he was employed in Sahara India. The respondent claims himself as jobless at present, it appears that he is concealing his present source of employment to avoid any enhancement in interim maintenance awarded to the revisionist which is payable by the respondent.
However, taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the huge expenditure incurred by the respondent in past to lead a decent life, his family backgrounds, his professional qualification as Engineer in Sahara India prior to his resignation therefrom, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance awarded to the revisionist in the impugned order is far less to meet out her financial requirements to lead even a simple life in today’s market conditions. It is almost impossible for a women who belongs to a middle class family, to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs 2500.
The Court in the order dated 27.02.2017 enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs 5,000 per month during pendency of revision which is also not sufficient for the revisionist to maintain herself, even if the claim of revisionist is taken on its face value that he has now become jobless is responsible to pay a sum for maintenance of his wife being a skilled, qualified and able bodied person.
Therefore, the Court directed that the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the revisionist in the impugned order 07.09.2016 be enhanced from Rs 2500 to Rs 5,000 per month from the date of filing of application of interim maintenance dated 01.09.2014 to date of impugned order dated 07.09.2016 and thereafter up to the month of November, 2024. Thereafter, respondent No 2 will pay the revisionist an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month from December 2024 during the pendency of the maintenance case before the family court, subject to any order passed by trial court under Section 127 CrPC. The interim maintenance will be payable on the tenth of each calender month,” the Court observed while allowing the petition.
“Nothing observed in this order shall have bearing on final outcome of maintenance case pending before family court concerned. The arrears of interim maintenance will be calculated at the rate of Rs 5,000 from the date of filing of application dated 01.09.2014 to November 2024 and will be payable in five equal and consecutive monthly installments and first installment will be payable on 10th January, 2025. Any amount paid by the revisionist towards maintenance pursuant to impugned order as well as interim order passed in present revision shall be liable to be adjustment towards arrears of maintenance,” the order reads.
The post appeared first on .
A Single Bench of Justice Manohar Narayan Mishra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Shilpy Sharma.
The criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Additional Family Court/FTC in Maintenance Case under Section 125 CrPC, whereby an interim maintenance of Rs 2,500 per month has been awarded to the revisionist.
The revisionist is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded to her and payable by the respondent. The revisionist has submitted that she resides in district Chandauli (UP), whereas her husband Rahul Sharma is a resident of district Ghaziabad.
She has filed the revision with prayer for enhancement of maintenance from Rs 2,500 per month as has been awarded by the court below to substantial extent on the basis of prima facie facts produced by the revisionist, and the amount to be awarded to the revisionist should be effective from the date of filing of application i.e 01.09.2014, so that she may be able to live in the same status, as she was accustomed to live when she was residing with her husband.
Her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 23.01.2007 at Baradhar Kaka Nagar, New Delhi and she was ousted from her matrimonial on 18.09.2007 from Jivan Apartment Vasundhara, Ghaziabad.
She further submitted that she has no independent source of income, hence she has filed an application for interim maintenance on 01.09.2014 in maintenance Case, wherein she prayed for grant of maintenance from the date of application. However, the court below awarded a meagre sum of maintenance to the tune of Rs 2,500 per month that too from the date of order i.e 07.09.2016.
Inasmuch as the Court below has not awarded any amount as cost of litigation and prevailing expenditure incurred by the revisionist to attend the court proceedings.
She is entitled to get maintenance as per requirements and equal to the financial status of the husband, but the court below has failed to consider this aspect of the matter.
The Court noted that,
On perusal of record it appears that conduct of the respondent was objectionable from inception of the impugned order and he always avoided to pay even a paltry sum of interim maintenance awarded in the impugned order on regular basis. The Court by the order dated 27.02.2017 passed an interim order to the effect that perusal of the earlier order dated 01.12.2016 shows that the revision has been filed for enhancement of the interim maintenance from Rs 2,500 to Rs 5,000 awarded by the court below on the ground that income of the husband- respondent is Rs 5 lakh per month, and notice has been issued to the opposite party- husband returnable within a period of four weeks.
However, the respondent did not comply the interim order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the court in the revision and used to pay interim maintenance to the revisionist at the rate of Rs 2,500 per month which is impugned in the revision.
Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent for non-compliance of the interim order passed by the Court, the revisionist filed Contempt Application and was granted one more opportunity to comply with the order dated 27.02.2017, on the condition that the opposite party shall deposit the difference of dues of the amount of Rs 2,500 up till 30.06.2019 in the court below. The said amount shall remain deposited and shall not be released and shall be subject to any further order that may be passed by the Court or by the Revisional Court.
The trial court observed in the impugned order that applicant has stated that the monthly income of opposite party (husband) is around Rs 4 lakh per month. The father of the applicant retired as JCO from Indian Army and did not able to maintain the applicant on his meager resources. Whereas the opposite party has claimed that he had reduced to the stage of starvation due to non-payment of salary, and the applicant is earning around Rs 50,000 per month from different sources. The evidence of the parties is liable to be come on issue of maintenance and the case will be disposed of after tendering of evidence by both the sides. Therefore in the opinion of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to pay Rs 2,500 per month to the applicant as interim maintenance to the applicant which will be payable by the opposite parties.
The Court further noted that,
From the perusal of the written arguments filed by the revisionist and other material on record it appears that the claim of the respondents that he has to maintain his family members, is not substantiated with record. His father is a retired Government Officer. His brother Manish Sharma has shown himself as to have belonged to upper middle class family in his facebook account and has shown himself as a professional, and his said annual income is Rs 4 to Rs 5 lakh. The respondent had shown himself in his facebook status as Engineer in Sahara Samay, interested in women, current location in home town New Delhi. He has added advertisement on matrimonial site as divorcee. During the pendency of divorce petition which was dismissed by the family court and appeal of the respondent is pending before the Court. The divorce petition was dismissed on 25.03.2014 and according to the respondent he had paid entire dues towards cost of litigation fixed by the court Rs 6,000 per month upto 01.08.2008 to 25.03.2014 which came to Rs 3,78,000. The case of respondent No 2 does not prima facie come within the purview of proviso (4) to Section 125 CrPC, as claimed by him.
“On the basis of material on record it cannot be held at present that she refused to live with her husband on her own sweet will they are living separately by mutual consent, or she left her husband without any sufficient reason. He has stated in his written argument dated 06.07.2017 that he is jobless. The calculation sheet of the expenditure of the respondent given by the revisionist is based on certain documents filed by the respondent in divorce case and on that basis she had calculated his approximate monthly income as Rs 4,09,118. She has also filed his bank statements and income tax returns, but all these documents relates to the period when he was employed in Sahara India. The respondent claims himself as jobless at present, it appears that he is concealing his present source of employment to avoid any enhancement in interim maintenance awarded to the revisionist which is payable by the respondent.
However, taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the huge expenditure incurred by the respondent in past to lead a decent life, his family backgrounds, his professional qualification as Engineer in Sahara India prior to his resignation therefrom, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance awarded to the revisionist in the impugned order is far less to meet out her financial requirements to lead even a simple life in today’s market conditions. It is almost impossible for a women who belongs to a middle class family, to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs 2500.
The Court in the order dated 27.02.2017 enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs 5,000 per month during pendency of revision which is also not sufficient for the revisionist to maintain herself, even if the claim of revisionist is taken on its face value that he has now become jobless is responsible to pay a sum for maintenance of his wife being a skilled, qualified and able bodied person.
Therefore, the Court directed that the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the revisionist in the impugned order 07.09.2016 be enhanced from Rs 2500 to Rs 5,000 per month from the date of filing of application of interim maintenance dated 01.09.2014 to date of impugned order dated 07.09.2016 and thereafter up to the month of November, 2024. Thereafter, respondent No 2 will pay the revisionist an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month from December 2024 during the pendency of the maintenance case before the family court, subject to any order passed by trial court under Section 127 CrPC. The interim maintenance will be payable on the tenth of each calender month,” the Court observed while allowing the petition.
“Nothing observed in this order shall have bearing on final outcome of maintenance case pending before family court concerned. The arrears of interim maintenance will be calculated at the rate of Rs 5,000 from the date of filing of application dated 01.09.2014 to November 2024 and will be payable in five equal and consecutive monthly installments and first installment will be payable on 10th January, 2025. Any amount paid by the revisionist towards maintenance pursuant to impugned order as well as interim order passed in present revision shall be liable to be adjustment towards arrears of maintenance,” the order reads.
The post appeared first on .