Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 10.09.2024 vs Reena Devi & Anr on 10 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:8295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No.586 of 2024
Date of Decision: 10.09.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Roshan Lal
.......Petitioner
Versus
Reena Devi & Anr.
... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate,
For the Respondent: None.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated
25.05.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Sunder
Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned Court
below, while considering the prayer made on behalf of the
respondents for grant of ad-interim maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C, proceeded to award sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as interim
maintenance, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Loveneesh
.
Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that learned Court
below, while granting ad-interim maintenance, failed to take note of
the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record suggestive
of the fact that respondent No. 1 has sufficient means to sustain
herself.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned
in the impugned order, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the
same and as such, no interference is called for.
4. Needless to say, while considering prayer, if any, for ad-
interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Court is not required
to see documentary evidence, if any, adduced on record, rather at this
stage, Court is only required to see pleadings of the party seeking
such maintenance. Very purpose and object of granting interim
maintenance during the pendency of the main petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C., is to ensure that a person seeking such maintenance is
not left to starve.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no
merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed, as a
result thereof, order impugned in the instant proceedings is upheld,
with a direction to learned Court below to decide the main petition
filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, expeditiously, preferably within a
.
period of two months. Needless to say, maintenance received by the
respondents as ad-interim maintenance shall be adjusted in the
amount, if any, awarded in the main petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner undertakes
to cause presence of his client before the learned Court below on
25.09.2024, enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated time.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
September 10, 2024
(sunil)
