No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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

 

Similar News