Allahabad Excessive Court docket rejects a lady’s declare for alimony from her unemployed husband

Allahabad’s High Court has dismissed the application of a woman who asked her unemployed husband for an increase in child support payments.

A single judge of the Om Prakash Tripathi judiciary passed the order while listening to a petition submitted by Pratima Singh.

The Criminal Revision Motion was brought forward against the Order of 18 April 2016 by the Chief Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in another case (Pratima Singh vs. Pankaj Singh @ Dablu Singh), under Section 125 CrPC, Kachhawan Police Station, District Mirzapur, where the Court rejected revisionist’s prayer for grant of Rs 8,000 monthly alimony from Pankaj Singh and granted monthly alimony of Rs 2,000 from the date of the order.

The main reason for the criminal appeal request is that the contested injunction is unlawful, arbitrary and violates the evidence on file. Revisionist has no source of income and is unable to support herself and is entirely dependent on her parental family.

Pankaj Singh was earning Rs 15,000 per month by working a private job in Delhi. Based on conjecture and conjecture, the trial court has set his income at Rs 6,000 per month.

He is an academic and has worked privately. A notional income of Rs 6000 per month has been set without any basis. No distinction was made between skilled and unskilled workers.

The revisionist has always and presently been anxious to live with Singh as his wife, and it is he who is unwilling to keep and support his lawfully married wife. The maintenance amount is too low and should be increased. A review of the contested decision shows that Pratima Singh is the legally married wife of Pankaj Singh.

The main point brought before the court is that the amount of alimony is very small at Rs 2000 per month while the other side claimed that this is beyond the husband’s capacity as he is unemployed and no earner.

Also read: Allahabad HC rejects Ghosi MP Atul Rai’s plea to repeal FIR under gangster law

The court stated: “On the basis of the evidence on file, the trial court had ruled that revisionist Pratima Singh’s husband is not in the service but engaged in farming, is a young man and is paid on the basis of a daily wage of Rs 200 per day the husband’s monthly income is set at Rs 6000 and considering the economic and social status of the parties, Rs 2000 per month is awarded as alimony from husband to wife.

Pankaj Singh’s claim the revisionist works in sewing, embroidery and beauty salons earning Rs 5000/- per month. Her father has 10 bigha kheti and is a postman earning Rs 7000/- per month but such a fact has not been claimed even in Pankaj Singh’s Chief Investigator.

So this fact is not proven and the court concluded that the wife is not able to support herself. The wife has been living in her father’s house since March 24, 2010, ie in her parents’ house, she is an academic and does not provide any service or source of income, cannot support herself.

Revisionist Pratima Singh is willing to live with her husband but the husband is not willing to live with her because she filed an FIR under Section 498A IPC against him and his father and they were held in prison in the said case .

The revisionist’s husband is his father’s only son. The husband also alleges that his mother has cancer and is being treated. The husband said in his testimony that his wife had filed a lawsuit against him and his father, for which he was in prison, which is why he refused to live with her. Pankaj Singh’s service in Delhi through private jobs is also not proven.

Also read: Allahabad High Court repeals FIR under Sections of IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act

The revisionists’ lawyer also presented the order of the Ministry of Labor and Employment of September 30, 2016, September 19, 2013, which classified the daily wages of skilled and unskilled workers.

This is an appeal, the appellate court has very limited powers to rule on the illegality and inappropriateness of the contested order and has no power to reassess the evidence, the court said.

“The trial court was right to set the amount of alimony at Rs 2,000 per month. Therefore, increasing the alimony from Rs 2000 to Rs 8000 per month is not appropriate as the husband is unemployed and has limited income. As far as the husband’s claim that the alimony of Rs 2000 per month is to be greatly inflated and withheld is also not tenable as it is very difficult to manage even groceries given the current inflation increase in commodity prices of the revisionist. Therefore the alimony of Rs 2000 per month cannot be minimized or increased.”

-observed the court.

The court found that in fact on August 12, 2010 a maintenance application had originally been filed as a misc case before Munsif Mirzapur. The application was dismissed ex parte on July 16, 2014, and the contested decision was overturned on appeal. This shows that the journey of the alimony claim began on August 12, 2010 and to date no alimony has been paid to the revisionist, which is very shameful.

Also read: The activist is writing to the Attorney General to get permission to open a contempt case against Yati Narsinghanand

“Based on the above statements, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the assessment of the finding of the Court of Appeal does not contain any obvious illegality error. The trial court did not overlook the maintenance and evidence reasons, so no interference with the contested decision of the Court of Appeals is required.

– said the court while dismissing the appeal.