2017 ALL SCR (Cri) 1847
SUPREME COURT
N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Kamlesh @ Kavita Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No.1227 of 2017
3rd July, 2017.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. K.P. SINGAL, Mr. BALRAJ DEWAN
Respondent Counsel: Mr. MUKESH VERMA, Mr. RAVI PRAKASH MEHROTRA
Criminal P.C. (1973), S.125 - Order of maintenance - Setting aside of - Challenge - Family Court had granted meagre amount of Rs.1500/- as maintenance to wife - Same was reduced to nullity on ground that wife was working as anganwadi worker and capable of maintaining herself - However, actual earning of wife is paltry and she would require full maintenance in order to enjoy reasonable comforts and to bring up her child - Impugned order manifests perversity and lack of sensitivity to plight of wife and her child - Hence, quashed - Order of Family Court restored. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
JUDGMENT
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in CLR No. 3355 of 2008 whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision application.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties.
4. It is to be noted that by order dated 03.03.2004, Family Court, Agra in Civil Suit No. 361 of 2006 had awarded maintenance, under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, of Rs. 1,500/- per month for petitioner herein an Rs. 500/- for her minor son. However, Pradhan Nyayadhesh, Family Court, Agra allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent - husband, which was confirmed by the High Court on the ground that petitioner was working as an anganwadi worker and she was capable of maintaining herself.
5. In this case the impugned order is oblivious of the realities and reduced the meagre amount of Rs. 1,500/- to nullity, which manifests perversity and lack of sensitivity to the plight of the wife and her child. In this case at hand the actual earning of the wife is paltry and she would require full maintenance in order to enjoy reasonable comforts as well as bring up her child. We are of the opinion that High Court erred in taking into consideration the grossly insufficient earning of petitioner to maintain minimum standards of livelihood, while disallowing maintenance under section 125 of CrPC.
6. Consequently, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order dated 03.03.2004 passed by the Family Court, Agra in Civil Suit No. 361 of 2006 is restored.