: 12 हजार रूपया के गुजारे को आठ हजार तक सिमटा लिया सदाकांत ने : रक्षा मंत्रालय में भ्रष्टाचार के आरोप में डेपुटेशन से वापस यूपी भेजे गये थे साहब :
उर्वशी शर्मा
लखनऊ : आबादी के हिसाब से देश का सबसे बड़ा सूबा उत्तर प्रदेश बाकई अजब-गजब है. यहाँ ऐसे भी भ्रष्ट आई.ए.एस. अधिकारी हैं जो सार्वजनिक मंचों पर महिला हितों के पुरोधा होने का दम भरते हैं पर जब बात अपनी पत्नी को गुजारा भत्ता देने की आती है तो निचली अदालत द्वारा तय किये गए 12000/- जैसी मामूली रकम के गुजारे भत्ते को भी कम कराने के लिए न केवल हाई कोर्ट जाते हैं अपितु हाई कोर्ट के जज को मैनेज करके साल 2013 में गुजारा भत्ता कम कराकर 8000/- पर नियत भी करा लेते हैं. और तो और अब इस आई.ए.एस. अधिकारी का नाम सूबे के नए मुख्य सचिव की रेस में भी बताया जा रहा है.
सदाकांत शुक्ला. जी हाँ वही सदाकांत जो भारत सरकार के गृह मंत्रालय में तैनाती के दौरान 200 करोड़ का घोटाला करने की बजह से यूपी बापस भेज दिया गया था और जिसे पहले यूपी की माया सरकार और अब अखिलेश सरकार ने अपने सिर-आँखों पर बैठा रखा है. माया सरकार और अखिलेश सरकार ने सदाकांत को जिस विशेष योग्यता के आधार पर उच्च पद सौंपे वह हैं इसका भ्रष्टाचारी होना और इसकी रीढ़-विहीनता. बैसे जहाँ तक बास्तविक योग्यता की बात है तो अगर सदाकांत की आई.ए.एस. में नियुक्ति की पूरी प्रक्रिया की सही से जांच हो जाए तो यह सच भी सामने आ जाएगा कि सदाकांत का चयन तत्समय प्रचलित ब्राह्मणवाद और सिफारिश के चलते ही हुआ था. हाँ, इस आई.ए.एस. में एक और गुण है और वह है अपने लिए सीढी बने लोगों को बहुत आसानी से भूल जाना। जिन लोगों ने सदाकांत को आई.ए.एस. की कुर्सी तक पंहुचाया, उन्हें अब हमेशा के लिए भूल चुके हैं ह साहब। अब यही अफसर मुख्य सचिव की रेस में हैं.
सपा मुखिया मुलायम सिंह की चरण-वंदना कर-कर के यूपी में मलाईदार पद पर आसीन हुआ यह अधिकारी देश के गृहमंत्री राजनाथ सिंह की चरण वंदना करके अपने 200 करोड़ के भ्रष्टाचार पर पर्दा डलवाए हुए है और अपनी सेवानिवृत्ति का इंतज़ार कर रहा है.
इस आई.ए.एस. की करतूत देखने के लिए कोर्ट के इस आदेश को देखिये:-
Court No. – 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 607 of 2008
Revisionist :- Sadakant
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amarjeet Singh Rakhra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Ganesh Gupta, Praveen Tripathi
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
Instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16th of October 2008 passed by principal Judge family Court Lucknow in criminal case no.833 of 2006, under section 125 Cr. P.C by which the Principle Judge, Family Court, Lucknow has allowed the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C moved by opposite party no.2, and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
It was submitted from the side of revisionist that opposite party no.2 holds a degree in M.A. and is a journalist by profession. and has monthly income of about Rs.25,000 per month. Principal Judge, Family Court has ignored the fact that the take-home salary of the revisionist, after legal and legitimate deductions, is only Rs,16,000 per month. Principal Judge, Family Court should have considered the earning capacity and qualifications of opposite party no.2 while deciding the amount of maintenance. Concept of prospective salary is alien to the provisions and the scope of section 125 Cr.P.C. Opposite party no.2 has every right and opportunity to move an appropriate application under section 127 Cr.P.C. to get the maintenance amount enhanced whenever occasion arises. It was also argued that normally the maintenance amount is to be granted from the date of order and in exceptional cases after giving the reasons the court can pass orders for providing maintenance from the date of application. It was also submitted that Principal judge has not given cogent reasons for granting maintenance from the date of application.
It was submitted from the side of opposite party no.2 that the revisionist is an IAS officer and after 6th Pay Commission he is getting much more salary than what he was getting at the time of filing of the petition. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that six pay commission has been implemented and the benefits to the employees have been given from the year 2006, and hence the maintenance amount is not excessive, but rather it is on the lower side, hence no interference is required in the maintenance amount. It was also submitted that it is the discretion of the court to grant the maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of order. It was also submitted that the criteria for assessment of maintenance has been described in the case of Smt. Veena Panda @ Seema Panda v. Devendra Kumar Panda, 2006 (24) LCD 677.
It was also submitted that proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a summary proceedings for providing maintenance to the neglected wife since long, and in case of delay and without any fault on the part of the wife, there is no illegality in granting maintenance from the date of application. Learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of Paras Nath Kurmi v. The Sessions Judge, Mau and others, 1999 (2) J.I.C. 522 Allahabad; Rakesh Kumar Dikshit v. Jayanti Devi, 1999 (2) J.I.C. 323 Allahabad; Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. and another, 1999 (2) 763 Allahabad; Lakhpat Singh v. Judge, Family Court, 1999 (2) J.I.C. 764 Allahabad; and Sartaj versus State of U.P. and other 2000 (2) J.I.C 967 Allahabad.
Heard learned counsels of the parties and gone through the record.
There is no dispute that revisionist and opposite party no.2 were husband and wife, and now a decree of divorce has been passed by the competent court. In view of the above, there is no need to ponder over the matter whether there exist any relationship of husband and wife between revisionist and opposite party no.2.
The whole argument of Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhara, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Praveen Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no 2, revolves round two controversies in this revision which has to be adjudicated upon by this court; (1) whether the principal Judge family Court was justified in granting the maintenance from the date of application? and (2) whether the amount of maintenance is sufficient or excessive?
So far as the first controversy is concerned, section 125 (2) of Cr.P.C. is very specific. It reads as follows: –
“Any such allowance for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceedings shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may be.”
This clearly goes to show that the grant of allowance has normally to be from the date of order alone, and in case this normal rule is not intended to be followed, then the court concerned may well grant the allowance from the date of the application, but such order should be backed by some reason to support the same. In the case of Anita Rani v. Rakeshpal Singh, 1991 (2) Crimes 725 (All) it has been held that allowing of maintenance from the date of application is an exception to the general rule of maintenance being payable from the date of order, for making an exception there must be reasons. In the case of Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chander Prabha Devi, 1990 Cr.L.J. 1884 this Court has held that when an exception has to be made in the ordinary rule making the maintenance payable from the date of application by an order, the order must be supported by reason or reasons. In the case of Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chander Prabha Devi. 1990 Cr.L.J. 1884 this Court has held that when an exception has to be made in the ordinary rule making the maintenance payable from the date of application by an order, the order must be supported by reason or reasons.
In the case of Rakesh Kumar Dikshit (supra) especially while you were given that her husband has delayed the disposal of the case. In the case of Ashutosh Tripathi (supra),the court has granted maintenance from the date of application considering the material evidence and having regard to the fact that husband has filed a suit for divorce and wife has filed a criminal complaint under section 498A IPC against the husband and visualising the tense atmosphere between them.
In the case of Paras Nath Kurmi (supra) this Court has justified the granting of maintenance from the date of application considering the fact that the application for maintenance was filed in the year 1990 and the case could be decided only in the year 1997. The Court has also considered that the husband has delayed the proceeding of the case. In such circumstances the Court has held that if wife is not to be blamed for a delay in disposal of the maintenance proceedings, she is entitled to maintenance allowance from the date of application.
In the case of Sartaj versus State of U.P. (supra) too, this Court has mentioned that the order of the Judge family Court show that the husband tried to delay the disposal of the proceedings.
In the instant case Principal Judge, Family Court has not provided any reasons for granting maintenance from the date of application. Maintenance application was filed on 25th of September 2006 and the case was decided on 16th October 2008. Thus, it cannot be said that the maintenance application has been decided with undue delay and the reason for the undue delay was the delaying tactics of the revisionist. There is no such finding in the impugned judgment. Thus, it is clear that in absence of any reason in the judgement holding the revisionist responsible for the delay, the order of granting maintenance from the date of application is clearly erroneous and without any reason. This part of the order cannot be sustained and the maintenance amount is liable to be paid from the date of order.
In the case of Seema Panda (supra) this Court, while considering the refusal to grant the maintenance by husband, has held that potential earning capacity, or that the wife can pull on for some time by selling her ornaments or she has fixed deposits cannot be ground for refusing maintenance. I am afraid this decision is of no help to the wife as the Family Court has not refused the maintenance and in this revision too granting of maintenance has not been challenged but the maintenance amount has been challenged on the ground of earning capacity of the wife. The potential earning capacity can be considered or ought to have been considered while deciding the amount of maintenance. It is to be noted that the revisionist has while deposing about his income has a stated that his total salary, after all deductions is Rs.16,000/-. The salary slip for the for the month of July 2008 has been filed, according to which his gross salary is Rs.49,692/- per month. The deductions for G.P.F, according to the impugned judgement is Rs.5,748/-. The Court below has allowed 10% deduction for income tax. Excluding all other deductions which the revisionist has claimed, the net salary comes to Rs.39,000/- approximately including the deduction for income tax. The court below has rightly not taken into consideration the monthly instalments of loans taken by the revisionist. Considering the take-home salary of Rs.39,000/- per month, the amount awarded for maintenance is excessive. The court below has considered the sixth pay commission report and presumed that revisionist might get Rs.70,000/- per month, of which there is no basis as pay fixation order etc. The Court below has also not considered the enhanced the income tax to be paid and the enhanced the GPF to be deducted from the above imaginary salary.
The plea of the opposite party no.2 regarding absence of the plea of granting of maintenance from the date of application bars the plea to be raised at this stage is also not sustainable. The ground or plea not taken in the revision can also be seen by the court as while deciding the revision the court has to see as to whether the order passed contains some illegality or irregularity. It is the Court which is to go through the impugned order and consider the irregularity or illegal. In matters of criminal or civil revision the court can suo moto call for the record and go through the order and this can satisfy itself regarding the order. In view of this it is immaterial whether any plea is taken in the memo of revision or not.
The revisionist has claimed that opposite party no.2 is a journalist and she is earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Though opposite party no.2 has not denied her being a journalist, she has admitted that through her writing, which is not too often, she gets about Rs.100/- or Rs.200/- per article. This clearly goes to show that the claim of the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is a journalist, or has an ability to write in the journal. Thus she is capable of earning from her writing as a journalist. The court below has not considered this aspect while granting maintenance to opposite party no.2. It is also not disputed that opposite party no.2 is a literate woman. This also goes to show that she’s capable of earning from her education. This aspect was also not considered by the court below.
While granting the maintenance the courts have also to consider that whether the wife is able to maintain herself or not. While deciding this the court has also to consider the earning capability of the wife. Considering this aspect, this court is of the view that considering the salary of the revisionist at the time of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., which was about Rs.39,000/- per month, the amount awarded under maintenance is excessive. I find that when the revision was filed, this Court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.6000/- continuously to the wife in each and every month for her maintenance from the date of the order passed by the family Court.
Considering the entire circumstances discussed above, I find that this Court has rightly fixed the maintenance amount. But as an abundant caution I feel that considering the entire circumstances, Rs.8000/- per month should be proper amount of maintenance, which should be paid from the date of order of the Principal Judge of Family Court that is 16th of October 2008.
The revision is thus liable to be partly allowed and the judgement of the Principal Judge, Family Court dated 16th of October 2008 is liable to be modified to the effect that revisionist is directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month from the date of order of the Family Court to Smt. Namrata Devi continuously. The amount already paid shall be adjusted accordingly
Instant criminal revision is thus partly allowed with orders accordingly.
Order Date :- July 30, 2013
लेखक उर्वशी शर्मा सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता हैं
