Allahabad High Court: Brij Raj Singh, J., expressed that, a father is legally bound to maintain his child according to the status and lifestyle.
Instant revision was preferred to set aside the decision passed by the Principal Judge under Section 125 CrPC after summoning the records of the lower Court with a prayer to stay implementation and operation of the said order and to direct the OP-2 to provide Rs 10,000 per month towards interim maintenance to revisionist and Rs 40,00,000 for the purpose of marriage and education during the pendency of revision.
The revisionist had filed through her mother for granting maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month to be paid by her father, the OP 2.
Analysis and Decision
High Court took note of the settled law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, that both, the working mother and working father have to take the liability of the child and if the mother is working, it does not mean that the father will be absolved from taking responsibility of his child. The father is legally bound to maintain his child according to the status and lifestyle.
The Court stated that in the present matter, lower Court’s finding that the revisionist was not showing emotional feeling and compassion towards her father on the dates when the case was fixed for hearing, has got no legs.
It is the duty of the father to maintain her child and the revisionist being daughter is entitled to seek maintenance from her father.
Further, this court opined that the lower Court committed an error while making an observation that the mother was working in H.A.L, therefore, she must maintain the revisionist. The finding was further incorrect, wherein, it was observed that the mother was maintaining her daughter since 1991 and thus it was presumed that all the needs of the child were being fulfilled.
It was also noted that OP 2 indicated that his total salary was Rs 78, 825 out of which he had deposited Rs 45,000 in PF just to show that he was getting a lesser income of Rs 23,025 per month. He deposited the heavy amount in the PF so that the revisionist may not claim the appropriate maintenance amount.
In view of the above findings, Court did not find the order passed by the lower Court to be sustainable. Hence, the revision was allowed. [Ankita Dikshit v. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No. 398 of 2016, decided on 13-5-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
Counsel for Revisionist:- Mohammad Aslam Beg
Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava