The Court finds unexplained financial transactions disqualify wife from maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., while son retains his right to maintenance from father.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has partially allowed a criminal revision filed by Devendra Saraswat, challenging the maintenance order issued by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Agra. The original order had granted Rs. 15,000 per month to Saraswat's estranged wife and Rs. 10,000 per month to his son. The revision sought relief on grounds of the wife's alleged adultery and excessive maintenance amounts given his financial status.
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla presided over the case, scrutinizing the trial court's handling of the maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The judgment emphasized the unexplained regular financial transfers from a third party to the wife, which were inadequately addressed by the trial court. The High Court concluded that these transactions disqualified her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which stipulates denial of maintenance if the wife is living in adultery.
The Court acknowledged the son's legal entitlement to maintenance, which was uncontested by the revisionist. The judgment affirmed the son's maintenance award, emphasizing his rightful claim given his status as the child of the legally wedded spouses.
The revisionist argued that the trial court had neglected to investigate the wife's alleged adultery adequately. The wife had received money from an unrelated third party, Lalit Mohan Pandey, yet failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for these transactions. Despite asserting that these funds were for medical treatment, the wife admitted to receiving money regularly and showed no personal connection with Pandey. The High Court criticized the trial court for not addressing this aspect thoroughly.
The revisionist further contended that the maintenance amount was excessive, given his reduced income. Previously employed at a shoe manufacturing company, he claimed his earnings had decreased due to the wife's complaint. However, the court found no documentary evidence to support the claim of job loss or reduced earnings, thus maintaining the son's maintenance amount as appropriate.
The judgment also addressed the revisionist's submission of photographs intended to prove adultery. The Court upheld the trial court's decision to discard them, citing improper legal proof of the photographs.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court modified the trial court's maintenance order, denying the wife's claim due to unexplained financial transactions, while affirming the son's right to maintenance. The decision underscores the importance of substantiating claims in maintenance disputes and the court's role in ensuring fairness and justice.
Bottom line:-
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Regular receipt of money by wife from a third person unexplained - Court held wife disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. - Maintenance to son affirmed.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
Devendra Saraswat v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2939950
