Lack Of Title Documents In Lal Dora Land Does Not Relieve Plaintiff From Proving Continuous Possession To Claim Ownership: Delhi High Court Unauthorized Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Without Prior Permission Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Bombay High Court Finality Of Litigation | State Cannot Re-Litigate Settled Decrees By Alleging Collusion After Affirmation Up To Supreme Court: Allahabad High Court SC/ST Act | Court Cannot Determine Conversion Status To Quash FIR Before Completion Of Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Absence Of Manufacturing Activity And Dilapidated Condition Of Premises Constitute Valid Grounds For Closure: Bombay High Court Non-Disclosure Of Existing Insurance Policies In Proposal Form Entitles Insurer To Repudiate Claim: Calcutta High Court Will Interpretation | Bequest Of "Above Said Property" Includes Entire Estate, Not Just Descriptive Portions Mentioned Therein: Delhi High Court Limitation Act | Court Can Balance Equities By Denying Interest For Delay Period In Land Acquisition Appeals: Gujarat High Court Article 21 Constitution Of India | Personal Liberty Of Detenue Cannot Be Curtailed Without Authority Of Law Post-Acquittal: Jharkhand High Court Order 8 Rule 1A CPC | Trial Court Should Not Reject Documents Merely For Delay If Foundation Is Laid In Pleadings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order XXII CPC Applies To SCC Suits; Rule 25 Of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules Does Not Govern Substitution Where Act Is Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court Recruitment Authorities Cannot Insist On Impossible Experience Criteria: Karnataka High Court Rules Against Rejection Of Motor Vehicle Inspector Candidates Order 38 Rule 8 CPC | Claim Petition Cannot Be Allowed Ex-Parte Without Adjudication On Merits: Kerala High Court Succession Certificate Under Section 372 Indian Succession Act Cannot Be Granted When Title Is Subject To Intricate Questions Of Fact And Law: Madras High Court SARFAESI Act | District Magistrate Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Between Borrower And Secured Creditor While Assisting Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Termination Based On Caste Status Without Cancellation Of Original Certificate Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court Section 13 Punjab Village Common Lands Act | Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted In Private Injunction Suits Where Title Against Panchayat Is Not Sought: High Court Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act  | Equal Opportunity Policy Of Employer Is Mandatory; Routine Transfer Policy Must Yield To Special Provisions For Caregivers: Rajasthan High Court Compensation Must Be Just, Not A Pittance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Award In Motor Accident Claim Registration Act | Sub-Registrar Has No Power To Adjudicate Title Or Refuse Registration Based On Unauthorized Layouts: Telangana High Court Section 50 NDPS Act | Failure To Individually Communicate Right To Be Searched Before Gazetted Officer Or Magistrate Vitiates Conviction: Telangana 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