Ramesh Chandra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2160 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 387 of 2022


Ramesh Chandra                                       ....Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                  ..... Respondents


Mr. Ravindra Singh Rawat, Advocates for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.



                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the order of interim maintenance dated 07.05.2022,

passed in Case No. 05 of 2018, Kunwari Devi Vs.

Balkrishan & Another, by the Family Court, Kotdwar,

District Pauri Garhwal. By the impugned judgment and

order, the amount of maintenance to be paid to

respondent no.2 by the revisionist has been increased

from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 1,200/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. It appears that the mother of the

revisionist, who is respondent no.2 in this revision filed

an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), which was registered as

Misc. Criminal Case No. 28 of 2014, Kunwari Devi Vs.

Balkrishan & Another, ("the case"). It was decided by the

Family Judge on 12.01.2017. The revisionist and the

respondent no.3, both brothers were directed to pay Rs.

700/- each to their mother, the respondent no.2.

4. The respondent no.2, in the Year 2018,

moved an application under Section 127 of the Code

seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

Having considered the income of the parties, the court

enhanced the amount of maintenance, payable by the

revisionist from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 1,200/-. Similar

directions were given to the respondent no.3.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that revisionist is a driver appointed on contract

basis in the Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation

Ltd. and he gets salary @ Rs. 2.48 per Km.

6. At the time of argument, learned counsel

for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist gets

about Rs. 7,000/- per month salary and he has four

children. The children are to be provided higher

education. Therefore, he is not in a position to pay the

enhanced amount of maintenance.

7. The court below, in the impugned order,

had observed that, it appears that the revisionist gets

Rs. 10,000/- per month salary. Neither in the court

below nor here in this revision, the revisionist has filed

any document as to what salary did he receive in the

past 1 month, 2 months, 3 months or 6 months.

8. Admittedly, even the wages for unskilled

labourers in Uttarakhand is more than Rs. 8,000/- per

month. The revisionist is 45 years of age and learned

counsel for the revisionist would submit that he is a

healthy person. The amount of maintenance has been

claimed by the mother of the revisionist. She also

receives widow pension of Rs. 1,200/-. She is seeking

maintenance from her two children.

9. After considering the rival contentions of

the parties, the court below has enhanced the amount of

maintenance.

10. Having considered the financial resources

and the condition of the parties, this Court is of the view

that the amount of maintenance, which is enhanced,

does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the

revision deserves to be dismissed.

11. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.07.2022 Ravi Bisht