Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana 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