Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 193 (UTT)

Azhar v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-02-20

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to judgment and order dated 25.06.2022, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 144 of 2020, Smt. Sartaj & another v. Azhar, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to respondent no. 2/wife. 2. In fact, when this matter was heard initially on 14.10.2022, the Court passed the following orders :- “Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of maintenance is on higher side. It is submitted that the revisionist is a barber. He has been directed to pay the maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e. 15.10.2020. It is argued that during Covid-19 pandemic, there was lockdown and the revisionist did not earn anything, therefore, at lease the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of passing of the order. Having heard, this Court is of the view that to the limited extent of examining as to whether the maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing of the application or from the date of passing of the order, the matter needs to be examined. Issue notice to the private respondent. Steps to be taken within a week. List on 24.11.2022.” 3. Today, learned counsel for the revisionist further attempted to widen the scope of the revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is maintaining three minor children of the parties; he is merely a barber; he has a meagre income; he may not be able to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month maintenance to his wife/respondent no. 1. Under the facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the amount of maintenance should be restricted to Rs. 2,000/- per month. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent would submit that the amount of maintenance is not on the higher side. It is merely Rs. 3,000/- per month; the revisionist is a man of means; he has sold one of his ice factories recently. Earlier, he had sold one of his properties at Rs. 2,50,000/- on record, which, according to the learned counsel, in fact, the revisionist had sold for Rs. 4,50,000/-. 7. It is merely Rs. 3,000/- per month; the revisionist is a man of means; he has sold one of his ice factories recently. Earlier, he had sold one of his properties at Rs. 2,50,000/- on record, which, according to the learned counsel, in fact, the revisionist had sold for Rs. 4,50,000/-. 7. This Court has, in fact, heard the matter in detail, noted the argued as raised then before the court and admitted the revision to the extent of examining as to whether the maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing of the application or from the date of passing of the order? 8. In fact, this order of admission itself is wrong, because on this count the revision ought not to have been admitted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 . In para 131 of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance”. 9. Today also, it is argued that, in fact the maintenance, which the revisionist is required to pay includes the duration when there was Covid-19 lockdown. 10. Be it as it may, the revisionist was found liable to pay maintenance. The court below did not have any option except to award the maintenance from the date of application, in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court does see any reason to make interference. Accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to be dismissed. 12. The criminal revision is dismissed.