Kuldeep Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 838 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2022

Kuldeep Sharma                                     ...Revisionist

                               Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others                    ...Respondents



Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.

                                       Dated: 22nd March, 2022

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 488 of 2017, "Smt. Anjali Sharma v. Kuldeep Singh" whereby a total interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of respondent no. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a small shop keeper and earns Rs. 12,000/- per month out of which, he is maintaining two younger brother and sister and bearing expenses of their studies and also having responsibility of his old and ailing mother and he is unable to pay such a higher amount to respondent no. 2 as interim maintenance.

4. After arguing at some length, he limits his prayer only to the extent that the matter may kindly be remanded back to the lower Court for its expeditious disposal.

5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the present criminal revision is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The matter is remanded back to the learned Court below to decide the same without being prejudiced, as expeditiously as possible.

(ii) Till the final disposal of the case by the Court below, the revisionist shall pay a total sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month regularly to respondent no. 2 before 10th of every month and without any break from the date of this order. However, the learned Court below shall be at liberty to either reduce or enhance the amount of maintenance after hearing learned counsel for both the parties from such date as the learned Court below deems it fit, in accordance with law.

(iii) Needless to say that the interim maintenance modified herein would have no effect on the merits and the Court below is at liberty as given above.

6. Needless to say that any application pertaining to the arrears of maintenance, if any, is filed before the Court below, the same shall be disposed of on merits, as per law.

7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 22.03.2022 RV