The Allahabad High Court, while enhancing maintenance amount, observed that it is almost impossible for a woman who belongs to a middle-class family to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of ₹2500.

The Court was considering a Criminal Revision against an order passed by Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby an interim maintenance of ₹2,500/- per month has been awarded to the revisionist.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed, "...I am of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance awarded to the revisionist in the impugned order is far less to meet out her financial requirements to lead even a simple life in today's market conditions. It is almost impossible for a women who belongs to a middle class family, to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs.2500/-."

The Revisionist appeared in In-Person while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rajendra Rai and Advocate Ram Shiromani Shukla.

The Revisionist was aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded to her and payable by the respondent. She prayed enhancement of amount to substantial extent on the basis of prima facie facts produced so that she may be able to live in the same status, as she was accustomed to live when she was residing with her husband.

Counsel for the Revisionist contended that she has no independent source of income and the Court has not even awarded any amount as cost of litigation and prevailing expenditure incurred by the revisionist to attend the court proceedings. It was submitted that she was entitled to get maintenance as per requirements and equal to the financial status of the husband, but the court failed to consider this aspect of the matter. She further submitted that Respondent objected to an application for interim maintenance stating that he received salary from December 2014 to September 2015 at half rate at the rate of ₹17,890/- per month due to strike in the company but in the judgment it is fairly mentioned that opposite party did not received any salary from the year 2015 to October 2015 and December 2015, this finding is against the record.

It was further submitted that the Respondent gave different statements regarding his salary before the court but was drawing an handsome salary, and was also having other sources of income, his monthly income exceeds Rs.4 Lakh per month. She averred that the Court failed to consider the calculation sheet /statement of income of the Respondent and papers submitted by him in Divorce Suit. It was further her case that the Respondent was interested in having relationship with other women and was leading a luxurious life as he had himself shown his expenses in various heads, which is not possible to be incurred by a person who is drawing a salary less than ₹12,000/- per month as claimed by him. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another.

Contrarily, the Counsel for the Respondent contended that revisionist showed his monthly income exorbitantly which finds no basis and the Revisionist is a highly qualified lady hersdelf who was earning ₹15,000/- per month from her own sources of income in the year 2017, and said amount must have increased at present due to gap of seven years. He further submitted that she refused to live with the respondent without any sufficient reason, therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance in accordance with the proviso (4) to Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the Respondent is now a jobless man and therefore no question of grant of maintenance to the Revisionist to status of the parties arises in which they were living at the time of marriage, maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's ruling in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy to contend that maintenance is always dependant on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors.

The Court found the maintenance amount to be meagre considering the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore enhanced the same from ₹2,500/- to ₹5,000/-.

"The respondent claims himself as jobless at present, it appears that he is concealing his present source of employment to avoid any enhancement in interim maintenance awarded to the revisionist which is payable by the respondent. However, taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the huge expenditure incurred by the respondent in past to lead a decent life, his family backgrounds, his professional qualification as Engineer in Sahara India prior to his resignation therefrom, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance awarded to the revisionist in the impugned order is far less to meet out her financial requirements to lead even a simple life in today's market conditions. It is almost impossible for a women who belongs to a middle class family, to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs.2500/-," the Court observed.

"This Court in the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month during pendency of revision which is also not sufficient for the revisionist to maintain herself, even if the claim of revisionist is taken on its face value that he has now become jobless is responsible to pay a sum for maintenance of his wife being a skilled, qualified and able bodied person," the Court added.

The Petition was accordingly allowed

Cause Title: Shilpy Sharma vs. Rahul Sharma (2024: AHC: 193479)

Appearances:

Revisionist- - In Person

Respondents- Advocate Rajendra Rai, Advocate Ram Shiromani Shukla

Click here to read/ download Judgement:







Allahabad High CourtJustice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

Sheetal Joon