Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 458 (UTT)

RAGHVENDRA TIWARI v. SHILPA AGARWAL

2019-08-21

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. In the present Criminal Revision, the challenge was given by revisionist to the impugned order dated 12th December 2018, as passed by the learned Family Judge, Roorkee District Haridwar in Case No. 125 of 2017, Smt. Shilpa v. Raghvendra, whereby in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance, the respondent-wife has moved an application under sub Section (2) Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was numbered as paper number 7B for the grant of an interim maintenance during the pendency of the principal proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The learned Family Court, after considering the fact that the total income, which was accruing to the revisionist-husband, who, initially was working as a Deputy Manager in Havells India Limited and was drawing a salary of about Rs. 60000/- per month, it has been contended by the revisionist-husband that later, on 22nd March 2017, he has submitted resignation and thereafter he has been privately engaged in a job from which he has an income of Rs. 5000/- per month only is accruing to him. 3. The said plea has been taken by the revisionist-husband, so as to deny the relief prayed for in the interim relief application, which was preferred by the respondent-wife in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. On account of the fact that by virtue of the impugned order, the learned Family Court has only awarded a maintenance of Rs. 9000/- per month i.e. Rs. 2000/- to the respondent-wife and Rs. 7000/- to respondent No. 3, who admittedly happens to be the son of the revisionist, who was born out of the matrimonial wedlock between the revisionist and respondent No.2, the revisionist-husband owes at least a social responsibility to maintain the minor child since being the natural father and guardian. This court declines to exercise its revisional power under Section 397 to be read with Section 401, because by the impugned order dated 12th December 2018, as a matter of fact, the lis has not yet been decided on merits, its only an arrangement which has been made by the learned Family Court, while granting an interim maintenance of Rs. 9000/- per month to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to be parted with by the revisionist by way of an interim arrangement. 4. 9000/- per month to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to be parted with by the revisionist by way of an interim arrangement. 4. Since by the impugned order, only an application paper number 7B, has been disposed of and the principal application under Section 125 is yet pending consideration, this Court declines to interfere the revision and the same is dismissed with a request to the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar to decide the principal Case No. 125 of 2017, Smt. Shilpa v. Raghvendra on its own merits untravelled by the finding recorded above within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgement. However, during this period the revisionist would continue to remit the amount, pertaining to and as settled by the impugned order dated 12 December 2018. So far as the payment of the balance amount from the date of filing of the application is concerned, that would be an issue, which is left open to be adjudicated by the learned Family Court at the time of final adjudication of the main application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. Subject to the above direction issued to the Family Court, this Court declines to entertain the revision and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be decided on its own merits. So far as the propriety of the impugned order dated 12 December 2018 is concerned, the revision stands dismissed. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.