Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 773 (UTT)

Suresh Giri v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-12-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance allowance was filed by the applicant (respondent no. 2 herein) against her husband (revisionist herein). 2. Husband contested the application and filed written statement. After considering the application and written statement, learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., vide order dated 30.07.2003. Husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000 as monthly maintenance allowance to his wife. The husband was further directed to pay said amount by the 10th of every month. Thereafter, an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance was moved by the wife against her husband. Husband filed objections against said application. After hearing both the sides and having perused the documents brought on record, learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar, allowed the application of the wife filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., vide impugned order dated 07.12.2007. The amount of monthly maintenance allowance was enhanced from Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,000 . Husband was directed to pay enhanced monthly maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the order i.e. 07.12.2007. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was preferred. 3. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate (since deceased) moved such criminal revision. When present criminal revision was listed for hearing, notice was directed to be issued to the revisionist to enable him to engage a new counsel. Notice was issued to the revisionist. He was served personally with such notice on 06.08.2013. When criminal revision was again listed for hearing on 28.11.2013, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Respondent no. 2 was already served earlier. 4. Even today none is present either for the revisionist or for respondent no. 2. This Court has, therefore, sought assistance of Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder to the State to decide the present criminal revision. 5. It was averred by the wife in her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that she was married to Suresh Giri (revisionist herein) on 16.05.1973, according to Hindu rites and rituals. Three children were begotten by her out of said wedlock. Her husband was employed as Sr. Auditor (Accounts) in the Indian Army. Her husband also owned a house at Roorkee. He received Rs.3,000 per month as rent from the said house. Three children were begotten by her out of said wedlock. Her husband was employed as Sr. Auditor (Accounts) in the Indian Army. Her husband also owned a house at Roorkee. He received Rs.3,000 per month as rent from the said house. Her husband was also a moneylender and his additional income from money lending was Rs.5,000 per month. In his written statement, husband admitted most of the facts pleaded in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The only specific plea, which was taken by the husband in the written statement was that, he has not kept any concubine. Perhaps, on the basis of the admission of the husband on all vital points, the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was allowed. Subsequent thereto, having moved an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance, although the objections were filed by the husband, but learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee considered the pay-slip of the husband, who was working as Sr. Auditor (Accounts) in the Indian Army. The applicant wife was able to show before the court below that the gross monthly income of her husband in the year 2003 was Rs.13,289. Husbands salary in November 2007, as per the pay-slip, was Rs.17,395. Learned court below was convinced on the basis of pay-slip of the husband that application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of interim maintenance allowance should be allowed keeping in view the inflation rate prevalent at the relevant time. 6. Learned court below, therefore, committed no mistake in enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance of the wife from Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,000 keeping in view the fact that the husband of the applicant-wife was drawing the monthly salary of Rs.17,395/-. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below. The monthly maintenance allowance was enhanced as per the guidelines laid down by Honble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. No interference is, thus, called for in the judgment and order under challenge. 7. Criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Revision Dismissed.