Mohammad Akhtar vs. Jaheda Khatoon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 242/2011

Mohammad Akhtar ....Revisionist

Versus

Smt. Jaheda Khatoon & Anr. … Respondents

Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, Adv. for the Revisionist. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Adv. for the respondents.

Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Having heard the learned counsel for either parties, revisionist Mohammad Akhtar (husband) submits that his income to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month has excessively been assessed by the Trial Judge while he is simply a tempo driver in Bareilly City and that too, the tempo is owned by his father.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the certificate, issued by the office of Tehsildar, Sadar, Bareilly, wherein the income of the revisionist has been shown as Rs.2,500/- per month by his vocation.

This Court perused the said certificate and feels that the certificate has been issued by the office of Tehsildar, on the basis of the report of Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal of area. The Court is unable to understand how Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal could assess the income of revisionist, who drives a tempo in Bareilly city, because it cannot be supervised by these Revenue Officials at every moment when the revisionist plies his tempo.

Tentatively, it can be estimated that in Bareilly Metropolitan City, the revisionist is well capable to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by his such calling. So, the Trial Court has rightly awarded maintenance @ Rs.3,100/- per month to his wife and two children. This revision has no force. So, it is hereby dismissed.

However, it can pertinently be noted that Rs.2,000/ per month has regularly been paid by the revisionist to the respondents in compliance of interim direction of this Court on dated 22.09.2011, while the maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,100/- per month was awarded by the Trial Court. This way, a big amount would have been mounted up as the arrears to be payable by the revisionist. The whole amount will, thus, be taken into calculation and the revisionist will pay rest of the amount in ten equal installments in addition to regular maintenance, as awarded by the learned Trial Court. In default of said payment, the respondent Smt. Jaheda Khatoon will be at liberty to invoke the powers of the Court under Section 128 Cr.P.C.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Nadim 02.07.2014