Smt. Ankita Sharma vs. Umesh Sharma

Facts

The applicants, Smt. Ankita Sharma and her minor daughter Ku. Jithisha Sharma, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- from the non-applicant, Umesh Sharma, who is the husband and father, respectively. The applicants alleged that the marriage took place on July 7, 2019, and out of wedlock, a daughter was born. They further alleged harassment, physical assault, and abusive language by the non-applicant and his family, leading to the wife residing separately with her parents. The non-applicant admitted the marriage and the birth of the daughter but denied other allegations, claiming the wife had undisclosed health issues and exhibited abnormal behavior. Ex parte proceedings were initiated against the non-applicant due to his absence during evidence. The Family Court partly allowed the application, directing the non-applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the daughter, totaling Rs. 4,000/- per month, along with Rs. 500/- for litigation expenses. The applicants filed a revision petition before the High Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.

Held

The High Court held that the learned Family Court, after considering all documents and evidence, had partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found that the maintenance awarded of Rs. 4,000/- per month, considering the income, social and economic status of both parties, and the current price index, could not be considered on the lower side. The Court was of the view that the learned Family Court had not committed any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court will not interfere with a maintenance order passed by the Family Court if it is based on a proper consideration of evidence and relevant factors, and does not suffer from illegality or jurisdictional error.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Family Court erred in awarding a meagre maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicants, considering the non-applicant's alleged annual income of Rs. 8-10 lakhs from a GST company and other sources, contrary to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.? Arguments for the applicants: The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material facts and evidence, awarding insufficient maintenance. The non-applicant holds a responsible position in a GST company and earns significantly, with additional income from agricultural land and family support. The child's educational expenses have increased, yet the maintenance awarded remains the same as the interim order. The applicants are dependent on their parents for livelihood due to the non-applicant's alleged conduct. Arguments for the non-applicant: The non-applicant's written statement admitted the marriage and daughter's birth but denied other allegations. He contended that the applicant No. 1 had misrepresented her health and blood group and exhibited abnormal behavior. The judgment records no further arguments from the non-applicant.