Uttarakhand High Court
Ram Krishan Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 November, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2021
Ram Krishan Nautiyal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, AGA for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the private
respondent.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-
(i) Order dated 26.11.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 67 of 2018, Smt. Laxmi Devi v. Ram Krishan Nautiyal, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal ("the case"). By it, an application for interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by respondent no. 2 for respondent no. 3 has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay 2 Rs. 8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his son.
(ii) Order dated 22.06.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2019, Ram Krishan Nautiyal v. Smt. Laxmi Devi and other, by the court of District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By it, the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and the order dated 26.11.2019 passed in the case has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. A very short question has been raised. The revisionist and the respondent no. 2 both are in job. According to the revisionist, his wife i.e. Respondent no. 2 gets Rs. 42,000/- per month salary and he gets Rs. 32,000/- per month salary. Taking note of these facts, the court below directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
4. It is argued that the amount is on higher side because the respondent no. 2 is already employed and is getting salary higher than the revisionist. 3
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that it is the legal and moral duty of the revisionist to maintain his son. He is not taking care of his son and is not paying any maintenance. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents, the amount of interim maintenance is not excessive.
6. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in fact, does not provide for apportionment of the amount of maintenance in case both the parents are earning. The impugned order has been passed as an interim maintenance. Admittedly, the respondent no. 3 is with his mother, who is respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is a teacher. The impugned order records that as per revisionist, her salary is Rs. 42,000/-. There is less dispute about it. There is also less dispute about it that the salary of the revisionist is Rs. 33,000/-.
7. Can it be said that, in fact, the respondent no. 2 was not in need of money to maintain his son, respondent no. 3? Whether these proceedings reflect that merely to get some share from the revisionist, the respondent no. 2 claims interim maintenance for her son? These are the questions, which would find determination during the trial of the case.
8. If the salary, which is told to the court below is admitted, after such payment of Rs. 8,000/- to respondent 4 no. 2, the revisionist would be left with only Rs. 25,000/-, whereas the respondent no. 2 would be having Rs. 50,000/- per month. It cannot be said to be a correct apportionment either.
9. Having considered the limited question of adequacy or excessiveness of the amount of interim maintenance, this Court is of the view that Rs. 4,000/- as interim maintenance may be provided to respondent no. 3.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed in the case deserves to be modified.
11. The revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent no. 2. Impugned order is modified to the extent as above.
12. The revision is disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.11.2022 Avneet/