Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4006 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


            Criminal Revision No. 434 of 2022

Rajeev Kumar                                 ...........Revisionist

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another            ......... Respondents


Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. P.C. Petshali and Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, Advocates for the private
respondent.



                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

order dated 28.06.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.8 of

2022, Smt. Madhuri Gahlot vs. Rajeev Kumar, by the

court of Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham

Singh Nagar (for short, "the case"). By it, an application

for interim maintenance filed by the private respondent

has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed

to pay `20,000/- per month to the private respondent as

interim maintenance. It is further directed that the

amount of `20,000/- shall be adjusted with any other

amount which is payable to the private respondent in

any other proceeding.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that, in fact, in a proceeding under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act"), the

revisionist had already been directed to pay `30,000/-

per month to the respondent, but it has not been

adjusted by the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

private respondent would submit that this amount has,

in fact, been adjusted.

5. Perusal of the impugned order revealed

that the court while allowing the interim maintenance

application, filed by the private respondent, directed the

revisionist to pay `20,000/- per month as interim

maintenance. The court further observed that the

amount of `20,000/- shall be adjusted with any other

amount which payable to the private respondent.

Admittedly, the revisionist has been directed to pay

`30,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Act. On

30.08.2022, when this revision was admitted, the Court

posed a question as follows, "if the amount of

`20,000/- is to be adjusted, does it means that the

revisionist is not required to pay any amount,

pursuant to the impugned order?"

6. The impugned order has been challenged

on the ground that the amount of maintenance payable

by the revisionist under Section 24 of the Act has not

been adjusted, but this is wrong. The impugned order

makes adjustment to it. The impugned order cannot

wipe away the order passed under Section 24 of the Act.

As stated, the amount of maintenance which is payable

to the respondent under Section 24 of the Act has been

taken note of, while passing the impugned order.

Therefore, there is no merits in this revision.

Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

7. The revision is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.12.2022 Sanjay