Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Lata Bisht And Another ... vs Mohan Singh Bisht on 8 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2013
Smt. Lata Bisht and another ....... Revisionists
Vs.
Mohan Singh Bisht ......Respondent
Mr. Siddhartah Sah, Advocate for the revisionists.
Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the respondent.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
This revision is preferred against the judgment and order
dated 30.10.2013, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 264 of 2011,
Smt. Lata Bisht and another vs. Mohan Singh Bisht, by the court of
learned Judge Family Court Nainital. By the impugned judgment and
order an application filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") filed by the revisionist has been
allowed and the court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 7,000/- per
month to the revisionists and out of which Rs. 5,000/- to the
revisionist no.1 Smt. Lata Bisht and Rs. 2,000/- to revisionist no.2
Master Sharansh Bisht.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists would raise only one
point with regard to the child Sharansh Bisht, who is revisionist no.2.
Learned counsel would submit that the amount of maintenance as
awarded to the revisionist Sharansh Bisht is on the lower side and it
may be enhanced to some higher side.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
would submit that respondent works in Delhi and get Rs. 17,000/- net
salary. Out of which, Rs. 7,000/- is to be given to the revisionists. He
also maintains his mother. Therefore, the amount of maintenance as
awarded cannot be said to be inadequate either to revisionist no.1 or to
revisionist no.2.
5. Not quite often it happens that in the proceedings under
Section 125 of the Code, party may file documents regarding their
income. This is one case, in which, the respondent's salary slip was
filed in the case and according to it, the gross salary of the respondent
is stated to be Rs. 20,000/- and his net salary is Rs. 17496/- . It is
recorded at the bottom of the page four and top of the page five of the
impugned judgment.
6. Admittedly, the respondent lives in Delhi. Though, he is
living separately from his brothers. The mother of the respondent was
alive and was a member of their family. Revisionists are living in
Haldwani. The living standard in Delhi and Haldwani is definitely
quite distinct. The cost of living is also different at both the places. Out
of Rs. 17,000/-, the learned court below awarded Rs. 7,000/- totally to
the revisionists.
7. After having considered all the relevant facts this court
finds no reason to make any interference and according to this court,
in fact, the amount of maintenance, which was awarded on the date of
decision was adequate, keeping in view the financial resources of the
respondent as well as the place of living and social responsibilities of
both the parties. Accordingly the revision deserves to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionists would also submit
that since 2013, now the cost of living has come up and the salary of
the respondent must have enhanced since then, therefore, revisionists
seeks liberty to move appropriate petition before a forum for
enhancement of the maintenance awarded to the revisionists.
Revisionists are always free to move the application for enhancement
of the maintenance under changed circumstances as permissible under
law.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.01.2021
Nahid
