PRAYAGRAJ: <\/em>The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong> has cancelled the monthly maintenance awarded to a wife after finding that she repeatedly received money from an unrelated man but failed to satisfactorily explain the transactions<\/strong>. Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla<\/strong>, however, continued the maintenance granted to the couple\u2019s son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband had challenged an order of the Family Court, Agra, directing him to pay \u20b915,000 per month to his wife and \u20b910,000 per month to their son under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He argued that the Family Court<\/a> had failed to properly examine his objection under Section 125(4) CrPC. <\/strong>According to him, his wife was regularly receiving money from a man named Lalit Mohan Pandey, who was neither her relative nor someone she claimed to know personally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During her statement, the wife admitted that money had been transferred several times from the man\u2019s bank account to her account. She also admitted that the transfers continued even after she had separated from her husband.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, she stated that she had never met the man, did not know where he lived and had no illicit relationship with him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband argued that the wife had failed to explain why an unrelated man was regularly sending money to her. He also submitted that these payments should have been considered<\/strong> while deciding whether she was capable of maintaining herself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The State opposed the revision and argued that the money had been received by the wife for medical treatment<\/strong>. It submitted that merely receiving financial help from another person could not automatically prove an illicit relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband had also relied upon certain photographs<\/strong>. However, the High Court refused to consider them because they had not been legally proved according to the rules of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court nevertheless found that the regular money transfers<\/strong> were an important circumstance which the Family Court had failed to properly examine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHowever, the unexplained and regular receipt of money by O.P. No. 2 from a third person was a relevant circumstance which required due consideration by the trial court while examining the plea of the revisionist under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court held that the circumstances surrounding the repeated transfers had not been satisfactorily explained. It therefore set aside the direction requiring the husband to pay \u20b915,000 per month to the wife.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court upheld the \u20b910,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the son<\/strong>. It noted that the child\u2019s right to maintenance from his father was separate and undisputed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the husband\u2019s criminal revision was partly allowed<\/strong>. The wife\u2019s maintenance was cancelled, while the son\u2019s maintenance remained unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied In This Caes<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Allows a wife, child or parent to claim maintenance.<\/td> Used to grant maintenance to the wife and son.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125(4) CrPC<\/strong><\/td> A wife may be denied maintenance in specified situations, including living in adultery.<\/td> Husband relied on it to challenge the wife\u2019s claim.<\/td><\/tr> Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td> Higher court checks serious legal errors in a lower court order.<\/td> High Court reviewed and partly changed the Family Court order.<\/td><\/tr> Rules of Evidence for Photographs<\/strong><\/td> Photographs must be properly proved before being relied upon.<\/td> The Court rejected the photographs as unproved.<\/td><\/tr> Child\u2019s Right to Maintenance<\/a><\/strong><\/td> A child has an independent right to financial support.<\/td> Son\u2019s \u20b910,000 monthly maintenance was upheld.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n