Allahabad High Court
NATTHULALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The order awarding Rs. 5000 maintenance to the daughter is upheld.
Summary
Natthulal filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order that awarded Rs. 5000 as maintenance to his daughter, alleging the amount was excessive and beyond his financial means despite owning seven acres of land. The opposite party argued that the sum was modest and the petitioner could comfortably pay it. The High Court examined the matrimonial dispute and underscored the father's paramount duty to support his child, whose needs would increase with age. Finding no infirmity in the original order, the Court held that the maintenance award was appropriate. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance award of Rs. 5000 to the daughter is excessive and liable to be reduced or set aside
- Whether the revision filed by the petitioner has merit
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- maternity dispute
- child support
- revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4594 of 2024
Natthulal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd Afzal, Vivek Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gorakh Nath Trivedi, Sonam
Trivedi
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 3.6.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Philibhit in Case
No. 486 of 2019 (Km. Divyanka Versus Natthulal). By the said order dated
3.6.2024 a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded to the daughter of the
revisionist, who is staying away from the revisionist for certain reason, i. e.
there is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife i. e. revisionist
(herein) and his wife, who is also staying away from the revisionist.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the amount
of Rs. 5000/- is excessive, exorbitant and beyond the financial resources of
the revisionist, therefore the same is liable to be reduced or set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that the revisionist is
having seven acres of land and it is difficult to generate that much income so
that he could pay Rs. 5000/- to opposite party no. 2 and prayed that the
order dated 3.6.2024 is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the said
amount of Rs. 5000/- is bare minimum and the revisionist is in a comfortable
position to pay the said amount.
6. Having considered the rival contentions and after going through the order
dated 3.6.2024, it is clear that there is a matrimonial dispute between the
CRLR No. 4594 of 2024
2
husband and wife but because of some dispute pending between husband
and wife, the children cannot be made to suffer, particularly the daughter,
who is of growing age and her needs are likely to go up with the passage of
time, such as expenditure on education and clothes etc. and therefore, it is
paramount duty of the father to take care of his children and in the present
case, daughter of the revisionist, therefore no infirmity, whatsoever is found
in the order dated 3.6.2024, wherein the maintenance has been awarded to
none other than, the daughter of the revisionist.
7. In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed
March 18, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…