25% Of Monthly Pension As Maintenance Not Excessive: Allahabad HC Directs Husband To Pay Arrears Of Maintenance
The Allahabad High Court directed a husband to pay arrears of maintenance to his wife holding that 25% of monthly pension as maintenance cannot be considered excessive.
The Family Court had rejected the husband’s application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for a reduction in the maintenance allowance on the ground that he was not drawing any income from his agricultural land
A Single Bench of Justice Surendra Singh observed, “The proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature in which only prima facie it has to be seen that the applicant is the wife of opposite party. It is a social legislation enacted for protecting the wife, minor children and parents of a person from vagrancy and destitution.”
Advocate Praveen Kumar Tripathi represented the revisionist, while GA Jitendra Kumar Pandey appeared for the opposite party.
The impugned order passed by the Family Court granted maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently, an application filed by the husband under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the maintenance allowance was rejected by the Family Court.
The husband contended that he was not legally wedded to his wife and that her children were not his, thus challenging the basis of the maintenance order. However, the trial court found ample evidence supporting wife’s claims, including documentation such as Aadhar cards, ration card, school records, and witness testimony.
The husband had also contended that he was neither in possession nor drawing any income from the agricultural land used towards the calculation of maintenance.
Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, considering the husband’s pension and agricultural income. It held that “the trial court has rightly rejected his application filed u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for reduction in the maintenance allowance on the ground that he is not drawing any income from the agricultural land.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Cause Title: Matapher v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:58465)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocates Praveen Kumar Tripathi and Krishna Tripathi
Opposite Party: GA Jitendra Kumar Pandey; Advocate Pankaj Dwivedi
