MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Merely Because Appellant Is Capable of Earning Is Not, Sufficient Reason To Reduce The Maintenance Awarded By The Family Court: Allahabad High Court Enhances Maintenance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has revisited the adequacy of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, delivering a landmark decision that emphasizes the husband’s undisclosed income and assets in determining maintenance payments.

The revision challenged the order of the Family Court in Muzaffarnagar which had earlier granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000 to the wife and Rs.2,000 each to the two children. The revisionists argued that the trial court failed to adequately consider the husband's income and assets, which included involvement in a family business, ownership of significant financial instruments like NSCs and PPF, and properties.

The revisionists contended that the husband, while claiming a meagre income of Rs.7,000 per month as a salesman, actually had considerable assets and a higher undisclosed income from the family business. The trial court’s order was asserted as grossly inadequate given the standard of living and the husband’s financial capacity.

Income Evaluation: The court noted discrepancies in the husband's claimed income versus evidence suggesting investments in NSCs, PPF, and a family-run saree business.

Legal Jurisdiction: The judgment discussed the applicability of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, affirming the High Court’s jurisdiction over criminal revisions against Family Court orders concerning maintenance under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.

Maintenance Determination: Citing precedents, the court determined that maintenance should ideally be 25% of the husband's income for the wife and 20% for each child, acknowledging that the husband's actual income is significantly underreported.

Modification of Maintenance Order: Concluding that the initial maintenance awarded was unjust and inadequate, the court revised the maintenance to Rs.15,000 for the wife and Rs.6,000 for each child per month.

Decision: The criminal revision was partly allowed, setting aside the earlier Family Court's maintenance order in part and enhancing the maintenance allowance. The revised amounts are to be paid from the date of the original application, with arrears distributed in four equal instalments.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

Smt. Shaily Mittal And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P And Another

 

Latest Legal News