Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

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