Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 476 (UTT)

Jitin Bhasin v. Mamta Suri

2016-08-16

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to set aside the order dated 02.08.2016, passed in Misc. Case no. 63 of 2016, titled as Jitin Bhasin vs Mamta Suri, by learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun to the extent it provides the interim maintenance to the respondent. 2. Respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun against the applicant for grant of monthly maintenance allowance. The said proceedings were decided ex parte against the applicant. The court below, vide order dated 10.02.2016, allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and directed the opposite party (applicant herein) to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance to his respondent-wife. The said order was passed on 10.02.2016. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the applicant filed an application for setting aside ex parte order, which was allowed, vide impugned order dated 02.08.2016, with the condition that the applicant shall pay 50 per cent (i.e., Rs. 15,000/- by 7th of every month) as monthly maintenance allowance, which was granted to the respondent-wife vide order dated 10.02.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has come to the Court with clean hands. He put forward the following proposals: (i) that 50 per cent (i.e. Rs.52,500/-) of the monthly maintenance allowance (which has been directed to be paid by the applicant vide impugned order dated 02.08.2016 in favour of the respondent-wife) be directed to be paid to the respondent-wife, as costs. (ii) the court below be directed to decide the interim maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at an early date, preferably within a month. Learned counsel assures the Court that the applicant will extend fullest cooperation to the court below in deciding such an application at an earliest. 4. Since the applicant has come to the Court with clean hands, therefore, innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is worth accepting in the backdrop of facts and circumstances, which have been discussed here-in-above, as also in the impugned order dated 02.08.2016 as well as order dated 10.02.2016. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant categorically stated that there was no service of summons upon the applicant, inasmuch as he was away at United States of America when the proceedings before the court below took place and when ex parte order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant categorically stated that there was no service of summons upon the applicant, inasmuch as he was away at United States of America when the proceedings before the court below took place and when ex parte order was passed. Believing on such statement of learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondent to avoid procrastination in disposal of the proceedings before the trial court as well as disposal of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of by partly setting aside the order dated 02.08.2016. Application no. 3-Ka moved by the applicant-husband under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. before the court below is, therefore, allowed subject to deposition of Rs. 52,500/- (i.e. 50 per cent of maintenance allowance), as costs, to be paid by the applicant-husband to the respondent-wife within two weeks from the date of issuance of certified copy of this order. The learned court below is requested to decide such interim maintenance application along with objections thereon, if any, to be filed by the applicant-husband preferably within four weeks. The same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 52,500/- by the applicant-husband, as costs, to the respondent-wife, as directed above. Needless to say that the court below while passing the fresh order shall not be prejudiced by its earlier order dated 02.08.2016. 7. Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent, therefore, respondent is granted liberty to move for recall of this order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.