The court docket famous that within the case at hand, 25% of the husband’s month-to-month pension was calculated to Rs 8,664 whereas the household court docket had granted solely Rs 7,000 as month-to-month upkeep to his estranged spouse. (Image for illustration: News18)
The Allahabad HC stated the quantity of Rs 7,000 as allowed couldn’t be thought of extreme in view of the legislation laid down by the Supreme Court
The Allahabad High Court just lately upheld the choice of a household court docket permitting round 25% of the husband’s pension as a month-to-month upkeep allowance to his estranged spouse. Court stated that the quantity of Rs.7,000 as allowed couldn’t be thought of extreme in view of the legislation laid down by the Supreme Court.
The bench of Justice Surendra Singh referred to the ruling of the Apex Court in Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari, (1970) the place it was held that 25% of the husband’s web wage can be simply and correct to be awarded as upkeep allowance to the spouse.
Court famous that within the case at hand, 25% of the husband’s month-to-month pension was calculated to Rs.8,664, whereas the household court docket had granted solely Rs.7,000 as month-to-month upkeep allowance to his estranged spouse.
Therefore, the upkeep allowance granted to the other social gathering no. 2 (spouse) can’t be thought of as extreme vis-a-vis the month-to-month pension of the revisionist (husband) quite it’s on the decrease aspect, identified the bench whereas upholding the household court docket’s choice.
The husband, a retired 79-year-old man, moved the excessive court docket difficult two orders of the household court docket. The household court docket had permitted his estranged spouse’s request for upkeep allowance underneath Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and it had additionally turned down his plea underneath Section 127 of the CrPC for discount in upkeep allowance.
Before the excessive court docket, the husband’s counsel alleged that the lady claiming to be his spouse had by no means been legally married to him, and her two youngsters weren’t biologically associated to him. The court docket was knowledgeable that the husband was not residing within the village the place the lady lived with the husband’s brother and that he had his circle of relatives, together with a spouse and two sons, within the metropolis. Furthermore, it was famous that the household court docket had beforehand denied the husband’s request for DNA testing.
Apart from that, the counsel contended that in figuring out the upkeep allowance, the household court docket erroneously included revenue from agricultural land situated within the husband’s village, regardless of the husband’s assertion that he didn’t obtain any revenue from it. The counsel clarified that the husband solely relied on a pension amounting to Rs. 34,656.
The excessive court docket famous that earlier than the household court docket, the spouse had positioned documentary proof that supported her declare to be the legally wedded spouse. On the opposite hand, the husband had failed to present any proof of his authorized marriage to his alleged spouse within the metropolis.
The excessive court docket emphasised that the proceedings underneath Section 125 CrPC are abstract in nature during which solely prima facie it has to be seen that the applicant is the spouse of reverse social gathering. “It is a social legislation enacted for protecting the wife, minor children and parents of a person from vagrancy and destitution,” court docket stated.
Further, relating to the quantum of the upkeep, the only choose bench noticed that even when it have been computed based mostly solely on the husband’s month-to-month pension, the quantity allowed would nonetheless be lower than 25% of the pension quantity.
Therefore, court docket held that there was no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error within the impugned orders of the household court docket.
