Uttarakhand High Court
Darmiyan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 28 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 928 of 2018
Darmiyan Singh
..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others
.....Respondents
Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State/respondent no. 1.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of this petition the followings have been
challenged:
(i) Judgment and order dated 5th April, 2017 passed
in Misc. Criminal Case No. 40 of 2016, Smt. Mamta
and another Vs. Shri Darmiyan Singh, passed by the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District
Uttarkashi ("the Case") and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 20th February, 2018
passed in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2017, Darmiyan
Singh Vs. Smt. Mamta and another, passed by the
Court of Session Judge, Uttarkashi ("the revision"). By
it, the judgment and order dated 5th April 2017, passed
in the case has been confirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the file.
3. Petitioner and respondent no. 2 are husband and
wife. Respondent no. 3 Nikita is their daughter.
4. It appears that on an application under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, parties
entered into a compromise in the year 2011, by which
the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 2500/- to the
respondent no. 2 i.e. his wife along with arrangements
for their children.
5. Subsequently, the son started staying with the
petitioner but the daughter still remains with the
respondent no. 2, the wife.
6. The respondent no. 2 filed an application for
enhancement of the maintenance allowance. By the
judgment and order dated 05.04.2017, the Court after
hearing both the parties, enhanced the amount of
maintenance to Rs. 4,000/- (Rs.3000/- to the
respondent no. 2, the wife and Rs.1000/- to the
respondent no. 3, the daughter).
7. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner unsuccessfully
challenged it in the revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is a poor person, therefore he cannot
pay Rs. 4000/- per month to the private respondents.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the private respondents would submit that the
maintenance allowance was agreed in the year 2011.
The application for the enhancement of the
maintenance was filed in the year 2016, which was
allowed by the judgment and order dated 5th April
2017. It is argued that the enhancement is not in any
manner bad.
10. Mere statement that the petitioner is a poor
person does not make both the impugned orders bad in
the eyes of law.
11. Admittedly, in the year 2011, parties agreed that
the petitioner would pay Rs. 2500/- to his wife, the
respondent no. 2, and shall also bear other expenses of
the children.
12. The enhancement was made in the year 2017
from the date of impugned judgment and order. It is
almost after six years. In view of the escalation in the
prices of the commodities the enhancement in no
manner can be said to be unreasonable.
13. Nothing has been placed before this Court, which
may indicate that, in fact, petitioner is not in a position
to pay this amount. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that there is no reason to make any interference.
Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. The petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.03.2022
PN/-
