# Mool Chandra Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 514
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1156 of 2017
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mool-chandra-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46841
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.G.A.,
Sri
Achyutanand
Pandey,
Sri
Santosh Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Sections 401/397 & 127determination
of
quantum
of
maintenance-Learned court below rightly
passed the order for enhancement of
maintenance
as
the
revisionist
is
employed and getting salary having two
school going daughter, also the cost of
living has been increased-the object of
section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to
ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial
suffering of a woman who left her
matrimonial
home
along
with
her
children-husband
can
not
take
subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit
of living with dignity.(Para 1 to 13)

Monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman
and the children must be adequate, fair
,reasonable, and consistent with the standard of
living to which the aggrieved woman was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home.(Para 8
to 9)

The revision is dismissed.( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Further, taking into account the
fact that the revisionist has caused undue
delay in making endevour for compounding
the offence in terms of guidelines framed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar
S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (Supra),
the revisionist is directed to pay a cost of
15% of the cheque amount to the High
Court Legal Services Committee, High
Court, Allahabad within a period of three
weeks from today.

14. In case, the amount of Rs.5000/-
towards cost/interest is paid to the opposite
party no.2 and 15% of the cheque amount
is deposited by the revisionist to the High
Court Legal Services Committee, High
Court, Allahabad with the stipulated period,
the judgment and sentence dated 6.7.2018
passed by the trial Court duly confirmed by
the appellate Court vide judgment and
order dated 9.12.2020 is set aside.

15. The revision is allowed in the
above terms.
----------

(2021)02ILR A514
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1156 of 2017

Mool Chandra ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vikas Tripathi, Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey,
Sri Harish Yadav, Sri Jitendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.,
Sri
Achyutanand
Pandey,
Sri
Santosh Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Sections 401/397 & 127determination
of
quantum
of
maintenance-Learned court below rightly
passed the order for enhancement of
maintenance
as
the
revisionist
is
employed and getting salary having two
school going daughter, also the cost of
living has been increased-the object of
section 125 Cr.P.C. was conceived to
ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial
suffering of a woman who left her
matrimonial
home
along
with
her
children-husband
can
not
take
subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit
of living with dignity.(Para 1 to 13)

Monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman
and the children must be adequate, fair
,reasonable, and consistent with the standard of
living to which the aggrieved woman was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home.(Para 8
to 9)

The revision is dismissed.( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena & ors. (2015)
6 SCC 353

2. Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr. : Crl. Appl. No. 730
of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) 9503 of 2018
)Nov. 4, 2020: 2020 SCC Online SC 903

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Santosh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate
holding brief of Sri Achyutanand Pandey,
learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2
and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order
2 All. Mool Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
515
dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Banda in Case No.
110/11 of 2014 (Smt. Meena Devi and
others Vs. Mool Chandra) under Section
127 Cr.P.C., by which, the court concern
has allowed the application filed under
Section 127 Cr.P.C. and has directed the
revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to
the opposite party no.2 Smt. Meena Devi
and Rs. 2,000/- per month each to the
opposite party no.3 Kumari Anju and
opposite party no.4 Kumari Mansi from the
date of the order. It has been further
directed that the said amount shall be paid
by 10th of every month to them.

3. The facts of the present case are
that the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed
an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
claiming maintenance from the revisionist
who is the husband of the opposite party
no.2 Smt. Meena Devi and the father of the
opposite party nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Kumari
Anju and Kumari Mansi which was
decided vide order dated 05.01.2012 passed
in Criminal Case No. 604/IX of 2010 (Smt.
Meena Devi & others Vs. Mool Chandra)
by
the
Civil
Judge,
(Junior
Division)/Judicial
Magistrate,
Baberu,
District
Banda,
by
which,
the
said
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
allowed and the opposite party therein who
is the revisionist in the present revision was
directed to pay by the 10th of every month
Rs. 1,000/- to Smt. Meena Devi and Rs.
750/- each to Kumari Anju and Kumari
Mansi.

4. Subsequently, an application dated
26.06.2013 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was
filed by the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4
with the prayer that the applicant no.1 Smt.
Meena Devi be paid Rs. 2,000/- per month
and the applicant nos. 2 and 3 Kumari Anju
and Kumari Mansi be paid Rs. 1,500/- each
per month from respondent Mool Chandra
who is the revisionist herein. During
pendency of the application under Section
127 Cr.P.C. further an application dated
15.09.2015 was filed by the wife and
daughters of the revisionist with the prayer
that the amount of maintenance be
enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- each to the said
persons.

5. The court concerned vide the
impugned order allowed the application
filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. vide its
order dated 08.02.2017 and enhanced the
amount of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to
Rs. 4,000/- to be paid to Smt. Meena Devi,
the wife of the revisionist and from Rs.
750/- to Rs. 2,000/- each to the daughters
of the revisionist, namely, Kumari Anju
and Kumari Mansi from the date of the
order.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
argued that the court below erred in law in
enhancing the amount of maintenance
without any basis and even failed to
consider the fact that the revisionist was
working as a sweeper who had taken a loan
from the department, from co-workers and
from the bank and is also suffering from
diabetes and thyroid and as such is himself
spending a handsome amount of money
from his salary for repayment of the loans
and for his illness and without considering
the same, the maintenance as awarded has
been enhanced. It is further argued that
Smt. Meena Devi the wife of the revisionist
is working in private hospitals as a sweeper
and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and the
said fact has not been considered and
ignored by the court concerned while
enhancing the amount of maintenance. It is
thus argued that the order impugned
enhancing the amount of maintenance is
irrational and has not considered the
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
important aspects of the matter and thereby
the amount of maintenance has been
enhanced without any basis and sufficient
reason.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA
argued that the order impugned does not
suffer from any irregularity or illegality and
the same is a just and a proper which has
considered the factum of the situation and
also the fact that the cost of living has
increased and as such the same has been
rightly passed.

8. The Apex Court in the case of
Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and
others : (2015) 6 SCC 353 has held that
wife is also entitled in law to lead a life in
the similar manner as she would have lived
in the house of her husband. It is further
held that the husband cannot deprive her of
the benefit of living with dignity. Para 2 of
the judgment is as follows:

"2. Be it ingeminated that Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short "the Code") was conceived to
ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial
suffering of a woman who left her
matrimonial home for the reasons provided
in the provision so that some suitable
arrangements can be made by the Court
and she can sustain herself and also her
children if they are with her. The concept of
sustenance does not necessarily mean to
lead the life of an animal, feel like an
unperson to be thrown away from grace
and roam for her basic maintenance
somewhere else. She is entitled in law to
lead a life in the similar manner as she
would have lived in the house of her
husband. That is where the status and
strata come into play, and that is where the
obligations of the husband, in case of a
wife, become a prominent one. In a
proceeding of this nature, the husband
cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of
the benefit of living with dignity. Regard
being had to the solemn pledge at the time
of marriage and also in consonance with
the statutory law that governs the field, it is
the obligation of the husband to see that the
wife does not become a destitute, a beggar.
A situation is not to be maladroitly created
whereunder she is compelled to resign to
her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It
is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the
sacrosanct duty to render the financial
support even if the husband is required to
earn money with physical labour, if he is
able bodied. There is no escape route
unless there is an order from the Court that
the wife is not entitled to get maintenance
from
the
husband
on
any
legally
permissible grounds."

9. Further in the case of Rajnesh Vs.
Neha and another : Criminal Appeal No.
730 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
9503 of 2018) decided on November 4,
2020 : 2020 SCC Online SC 903 the Apex
Court has discussed about the determinants
of maintenance allowance payable to wife
and children. In the said judgment it has
been observed as follows:

"III Criteria for determining
quantum of maintenance:

(i) The objective of granting
interim / permanent alimony is to ensure
that the dependant spouse is not reduced to
destitution or vagrancy on account of the
failure of the marriage, and not as a
punishment to the other spouse. There is no
straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum
of maintenance to be awarded.

The factors which would weigh
with the Court inter alia are the status of
the parties; reasonable needs of the wife
2 All. Mool Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
517
and dependant children; whether the
applicant is educated and professionally
qualified; whether the applicant has any
independent source of income; whether the
income is sufficient to enable her to
maintain the same standard of living as she
was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home; whether the applicant was employed
prior to her marriage; whether she was
working during the subsistence of the
marriage; whether the wife was required to
sacrifice her employment opportunities for
nurturing the family, child rearing, and
looking after adult members of the family;
reasonable costs of litigation for a nonworking wife. [Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal
v District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. (1997)
7 SCC 7, refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v
Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112.]

In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain :
(2017) 15 SCC 801 this Court held that the
financial position of the parents of the
applicant-wife, would not be material while
determining the quantum of maintenance.
An order of interim maintenance is
conditional on the circumstance that the
wife or husband who makes a claim has no
independent income, sufficient for her or
his support. It is no answer to a claim of
maintenance that the wife is educated and
could support herself. The court must take
into consideration the status of the parties
and the capacity of the spouse to pay for
her or his support. Maintenance is
dependent upon factual situations; the
Court
should
mould
the
claim
for
maintenance based on various factors
brought before it.

On the other hand, the financial
capacity of the husband, his actual income,
reasonable
expenses
for
his
own
maintenance,
and
dependant
family
members whom he is obliged to maintain
under the law, liabilities if any, would be
required to be taken into consideration, to
arrive at the appropriate quantum of
maintenance to be paid. The Court must
have due regard to the standard of living of
the husband, as well as the spiralling
inflation rates and high costs of living. The
plea of the husband that he does not
possess any source of income ipso facto
does not absolve him of his moral duty to
maintain his wife if he is able bodied and
has educational qualifications. [Reema
Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12
SCC 303]

(ii) A careful and just balance
must be drawn between all relevant factors.
The test for determination of maintenance
in matrimonial disputes depends on the
financial status of the respondent, and the
standard of living that the applicant was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
[Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316]

The
maintenance
amount
awarded must be reasonable and realistic,
and avoid either of the two extremes i.e.
maintenance awarded to the wife should
neither be so extravagant which becomes
oppressive
and
unbearable
for
the
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that
it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency
of the quantum has to be adjudged so that
the wife is able to maintain herself with
reasonable comfort.

(iii)
Section
23
of
HAMA
provides statutory guidance with respect to
the criteria for determining the quantum of
maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23
of HAMA provides the following factors
which may be taken into consideration : (i)
position and status of the parties, (ii)
reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the
petitioner/claimant is living separately, the
justification for the same, (iv) value of the
claimant's
property
and any
income
derived from such property, (v) income
from claimant's own earning or from any
other source.
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv) Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act
provides that the monetary relief granted to
the aggrieved woman and / or the children
must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and
consistent with the standard of living to
which
the
aggrieved
woman
was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

(v) The Delhi High Court in
Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde : (2007)
140 DLT 16 laid down the following factors
to
be
considered
for
determining
maintenance:

"1. Status of the parties.

2. Reasonable wants of the
claimant.

3. The independent income and
property of the claimant.

4. The number of persons, the
non-applicant has to maintain.

5. The amount should aid the
applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as
he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if
any.

7. Provisions for food, clothing,
shelter, education, medical attendance and
treatment etc. of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the nonapplicant.

9. Some guess work is not ruled
out while estimating the income of the nonapplicant when all the sources or correct
sources are not disclosed.

10. The non-applicant to defray
the cost of litigation.

11. The amount awarded u/s 125
Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount
awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17."

(vi) Apart from the aforesaid
factors enumerated hereinabove, certain
additional factors would also be relevant
for
determining
the
quantum
of
maintenance payable.

(a) Age and employment of
parties:

In a marriage of long duration,
where
parties
have
endured
the
relationship for several years, it would be a
relevant
factor
to
be
taken
into
consideration. On termination of the
relationship, if the wife is educated and
professionally qualified, but had to give up
her employment opportunities to look after
the needs of the family being the primary
caregiver to the minor children, and the
elder members of the family, this factor
would be required to be given due
importance. This is of particular relevance
in contemporary society, given the highly
competitive
industry
standards,
the
separated wife would be required to
undergo
fresh
training
to
acquire
marketable skills and re-train herself to
secure a job in the paid workforce to
rehabilitate herself. With advancement of
age, it would be difficult for a dependant
wife to get an easy entry into the workforce after a break of several years.

(b) Right to residence:

Section 17 of the D.V. Act grants
an aggrieved woman the right to live in the
"shared household". Section 2(s) defines
"shared
household"
to
include
the
household where the aggrieved woman
lived at any stage of the domestic
relationship; or the household owned and
rented jointly or singly by both, or singly by
either of the spouses; or a joint family
house, of which the respondent is a
member.

The right of a woman to reside in
a "shared household" defined under
Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman
for right of residence in the shared
household, irrespective of her having any
legal interest in the same. This Court in
Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja :
Civil Appeal No. 2483 / 2020 decided vide
Judgment dated 15.10.2020 (supra) held
that "shared household" referred to in
2 All. Mool Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
Section 2(s) is the shared household of the
aggrieved person where she was living at
the time when the application was filed, or
at
any
stage
lived
in
a
domestic
relationship. The living of the aggrieved
woman in the shared household must have
a degree of permanence. A mere fleeting or
casual living at different places would not
constitute a "shared household". It is
important to consider the intention of the
parties, nature of living, and nature of the
household, to determine whether the
premises is a "shared household". Section
2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the
D.V. Act entitles a woman to the right of
residence
in
a
shared
household,
irrespective of her having any legal interest
in the same. There is no requirement of law
that the husband should be a member of the
joint family, or that the household must
belong to the joint family, in which he or
the aggrieved woman has any right, title or
interest. The shared household may not
necessarily be owned or tenanted by the
husband singly or jointly.

Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act
provides that the Magistrate may pass a
residence order inter alia directing the
respondent to secure the same level of
alternate accommodation for the aggrieved
woman as enjoyed by her in the shared
household. While passing such an order, the
Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay
the rent and other payments, having regard
to the financial needs and resources of the
parties.

(c) Where wife is earning some
income:

The Courts have held that if the
wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar
from being awarded maintenance by the
husband. The Courts have provided guidance
on this issue in the following judgments.

In Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna :
(2018) 12 SCC 199 [See also decision of
the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v S.
Deepa & Ors., 2016 Cri LJ 4794] this
Court held that merely because the wife is
capable of earning, it would not be a
sufficient
ground
to
reduce
the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
The Court has to determine whether the
income of the wife is sufficient to enable
her to maintain herself, in accordance with
the lifestyle of her husband in the
matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita
Bai : (2008) 2 SCC 316] Sustenance does
not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean
mere survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal v Smt.
Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP
1252]

In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v
Anil Kachwaha : (2014) 16 SCC 715 the
wife had a postgraduate degree, and was
employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The
husband raised a contention that since the
wife had sufficient income, she would not
require financial assistance from the
husband. The Supreme Court repelled this
contention, and held that merely because
the wife was earning some income, it could
not be a ground to reject her claim for
maintenance.

The Bombay High Court in
Sanjay Damodar Kale v Kalyani Sanjay
Kale : 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694 while
relying upon the judgment in Sunita
Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the
mere potential to earn, nor the actual
earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is
sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.

An able-bodied husband must be
presumed to be capable of earning
sufficient money to maintain his wife and
children, and cannot contend that he is not
in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain
his family, as held by the Delhi High Court
in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani
Chander Prakash : AIR 1968 Delhi 174.
The onus is on the husband to establish
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with necessary material that there are
sufficient grounds to show that he is unable
to maintain the family, and discharge his
legal obligations for reasons beyond his
control. If the husband does not disclose
the exact amount of his income, an adverse
inference may be drawn by the Court.

This Court in Shamima Farooqui
v Shahid Khan : (2015) 5 SCC 705 cited
the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra)
with approval, and held that the obligation
of the husband to provide maintenance
stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.

(d)
Maintenance
of
minor
children:

The living expenses of the child
would include expenses for food, clothing,
residence, medical expenses, education of
children. Extra coaching classes or any
other
vocational
training
courses
to
complement the basic education must be
factored in, while awarding child support.
Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to
be awarded for extra-curricular / coaching
classes, and not an overly extravagant
amount which may be claimed. Education
expenses of the children must be normally
borne by the father. If the wife is working
and earning sufficiently, the expenses may
be shared proportionately between the
parties.

(e) Serious disability or ill
health:

Serious disability or ill health of
a spouse, child / children from the
marriage / dependant relative who require
constant care and recurrent expenditure,
would also be a relevant consideration
while quantifying maintenance."

10. The fact that the revisionist is
employed and was getting a salary of Rs.
15,938/- after the necessary deductions
which was paid to him in October, 2014 is
not denied. Even the fact that after the
payment in October, 2014, the revisionist
was entitled to enhanced payment on the
recommendation
of
the
7th
Pay
Commission is also not denied.

11. In the cross examination of the
revisionist on 22.12.2016 he had stated to be
receiving about Rs. 17,000/- per month as his
salary. The ailment which is being taken by
the revisionist and is stated to be one of the
factors of too much expenditure is a common
and a regular ailment and apparently there is
no proof of the same being a serious ailment.
The daughters of the revisionist are stated to
be grown up children as per the application
dated 23.03.2012 filed under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act by the revisionist
himself in the year 2012, in which, it is stated
that he started living in Kanpur after joining
his services in the year 2003 after which one
daughter was born who was about 10-11
years old and later on another daughter was
born who is aged about 7 years and as such
they are of the age of school going children.
The fact of rise in inflation, cost of living and
also taking into consideration the salary of the
revisionist which keeps on increasing every
year by way of dearness allowance,
increment etc. cannot be ignored.

12. Having taken into consideration, the
relevant factors for determining the quantum
of maintenance in the light of the legal
principles laid by the Apex Court and the
facts of the present case, this Court is of the
view that the amount of maintenance as
awarded is appropriate and there is no
irregularity and illegality in the order
impugned.

13. The present revision is thus
dismissed.

14. The party(ies) shall file computer
generated
copy
of
such
judgment
2 All. Shri Praveen Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
521
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad before the concerned
Court/Authority/Official.'

15. The computer generated copy of
such judgment shall be self-attested by the
counsel(s) of the party(ies) concerned.

16. The concerned Court /Authority
/Official shall verify the authenticity of
such computerized copy of the judgment
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)02ILR A521
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2547 of 2016

Shri Praveen Srivastava ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ajay
Kumar
Chaurasiya,
Sri
Ravi
Prakash
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Praveen
Kumar Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections 401/397 & 125-
determination
of
quantum
of
maintenance-Learned court below rightly
passed the order for maintenance as the
revisionist is employed and getting salary
having one school going daughter, also
the cost of living has been increased-the
object
of
section
125
Cr.P.C.
was
conceived
to
ameliorate
the
agony,
anguish, financial suffering of a woman
who left her matrimonial home along with
her
children-husband
can
not
take
subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit
of living with dignity.(Para 1 to 10)

Monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman
and the children must be adequate, fair,
reasonable, and consistent with the standard of
living to which the aggrieved woman was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home. (Para
5,6)

The revision is dismissed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena & ors. (2015)
6 SCC 353

2. Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr. :Crl. Appl. No. 730 of
2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) 9503 of 2018
)Nov. 4, 2020: 2020 SCC Online SC 903

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Chaurasia,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ashwini
Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA for the
State and perused the record. As per the
office report dated 21.08.2017, the lower
court records which were summoned are
tagged with the present revision, which
have also been perused.

2. The present revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Family
Court, Gorakhpur in Case No. 62 of 2005
(Smt. Sarika Vs. Shri Praveen Srivastava)
by which the wife of the revisionist has
been directed to be paid Rs. 10,000/- and
Kumari Bhumika Srivastava, the daughter
of the revisionist and the opposite party
no.2 has been directed to be paid Rs.