Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15334 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4540 of 2024 Revisionist :- Dhananjay Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Upadhyay,G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 24.7.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case no. 458 of 2022 whereby learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicant Smt. Poonam Sharma, wife of the revisionist and Purvi, minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement and Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicants respectively from the date of judgement. Thus, the court below has awarded total maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement and Rs. 9,000/- from the date of judgement onward. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 19.4.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals and couple were blessed with a daughter named as Purvi; the revisionist is qualified upto B.tech; he was earlier sales manager in a private company from where his monthly earning Rs. 12,000/-. Thereafter, he works under a contractor in building works; he lost his job due to an accident in which his one leg got shortened; he has filed disability certificate which shows physical disability of 50%; his father suffered brain hemorrhage on 3.5.2021 and subsequently died; the revisionist and family owned two houses, one in Naraura and another in Ghaziabad; in Ghaziabad house, his younger brother and his wife reside; the revisionist resides in house of Naraura; his father possessed agricultural land but same was not recorded in the name of revisionist; the revisionist has become jobless after the accident and he survives by income derived from ancestral property like house rent; he is suffering from acute financial constraint and he is not in a position to pay amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order. He also submitted that the respondent no. 2 has admitted in her evidence dated 8.2.2024 that she was earlier working; she is M.A. in academic; she earlier taught in Sent Thomas Public School, Chandausi but she has shown monthly income only Rs. 1,500/- which is not believable; she still works in said school but the revisionist could not get any documentary evidence in support of his claim; he has filed photograph and some documents but the court below has not placed reliance thereon; he has filed two CDs in support of his claim that his wife still teaches in said school which consists of you-tube video and personal video posted on Instagram site of respondent no. 2. He next submitted that father of respondent no. 2 is still alive and he is Principal in government inter college. It is wrong to say that he is not earning anything at present; the respondent no. 2 is temperamental lady and was not willing to live with the revisionist and she refused to live with him when he suffered 50% physical disability in an accident; she is at present living with her guardian (Phupha) at Chandausi out of her free will. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the revisionist has concealed his actual income; he is a person of sufficient means; he has sufficient ancestral property to his credit; he possessed of two houses, one in Naraura and other in Ghaziabad; he even admitted this fact in cross examination and wrongly stated that in the house situated at Ghaziabad, his younger brother lives there alongwith his wife; this is quite natural that the revisionist has inherited his ancestral property from his father after the death of father and even it is assumed that the revisionist lost his job due to disability suffered in some accident; he has possessed sufficient means to maintain his wife and daughter. Learned court below has placed reliance on judgement of Shameema Farukhi vs. Shahid Khan, 2015(1)AAR 507 and Rajensh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324; in Shameema Farukhi (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the husband is bound to maintain his wife if he is in a position to earn. I have gone through the impugned judgement and order passed by the court below wherein four points of determination are made on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The impugned judgement and order has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to both side to enable them to adduce evidence in support of their claim. Learned court below has given finding on the basis of evidence on record that the applicant no. 1 is wife of opposite party and the applicant no. 2 is his daughter; the applicant no. 1 was compelled to live separately from her husband as she has stated in her evidence that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture by the opposite party and his family members due to non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry; she has stated that her husband suffered accident in March, 2021; she visited her husband two days prior to the accident in Ghaziabad; she stayed in Ghaziabad for six months after accident; she used to visit her husband for some months prior to lock-down; she has not raised any complaint earlier to any authority as she intended to save her house; she is willing to live with her husband if he keeps affectionately but she apprehends danger to life and for that reason she is not willing to live with him. Learned court below has given finding that it is the opposite party who has deserted the applicant therefore, she is living separately from her husband in sufficient reason. Learned court below has also considered the question as to whether applicant no. 1 is able to maintain herself and her minor daughter; she has stated in her evidence that she is post graduate in economics; she was employed in Saint Thomas Public School, Chandausi prior to marriage where she was getting Rs. 1500/- as salary which was spent in her pocket money; she was residing at the place of her Phupha since 26.11.2021; she has denied that she is still continuing in her service in said public school at Chandausi; she has clarified that her daughter is too young therefore, she can not do service (job). So far as the contention raised by the revisionist that respondent no. 2 is you-tuber and she earns a handsome amount from posting photos and videos on Instagram and youtube; she has stated in her evidence that photos generated from internet are bears no date; she is not having any certificate of income derive from the school concerned; the revisionist has admitted in his evidence that he has filed two CDs on record which consists of personal videos of wife and himself and he has not supplied its copy to applicant no. 1. Learned court below has rightly observed in the impugned order that the opposite party has failed to produce any evidence on record which could suggest that respondent no. 2 is employed as teacher in Saint Thomas school even after the marriage therefore inference is drawn that although she is highly educated lady but she is not earning income at present. Learned court below has considered at length the earning capability of revisionist; he suffered 50% disability in her legs due to some accident; he is B.Tech degree holder; he has admitted that his father hold ancestral land; he has two houses, one in Naraura and other in Ghaziabad. In Ghaziabad house, his younger brother and his wife reside. He was working as sales manager in a company in Noida from where he was getting Rs. 12,000/- salary; he left PG company when all companies got closed; he was working in said company on the basis of his B.Tech degree. On the basis of evidence on record learned court below has given two finding that opposite party belongs to financial sound family and he is under obligation and also able to maintain his wife and minor daughter. Findings of learned court below are based on due appreciation of evidence on record. No substantial factual or legal error is found therein. However, keeping in view the fact that the revisionist has now become disabled due to some accident. Admittedly, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned order as future maintenance from the date of judgement is liable to be reduced to some extent keeping in view financial capability of the revisionist. Therefore, it is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 1 from the date of judgement is reduced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. The amount of maintenance awarded to minor daughter to applicant no. 2 is reduced from R. 3,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. The amount of maintenance awarded from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement is not interfered with; other condition imposed in the impugned judgement shall remain intact. The revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad