Uttarakhand High Court
Ram Krishan Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2021
Ram Krishan Nautiyal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, AGA for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the private
respondent.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:-
(i) Order dated 26.11.2019 passed in
Criminal Case No. 67 of 2018, Smt.
Laxmi Devi v. Ram Krishan Nautiyal, by
the court of Judicial Magistrate, New
Tehri, Tehri Garhwal ("the case"). By it,
an application for interim maintenance
under Section 23 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 filed by respondent no. 2 for
respondent no. 3 has been allowed and
the revisionist has been directed to pay
Rs. 8,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to his son.
(ii) Order dated 22.06.2021 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2019, Ram
Krishan Nautiyal v. Smt. Laxmi Devi and
other, by the court of District & Sessions
Judge, Tehri Garhwal. By it, the appeal
filed by the revisionist has been
dismissed and the order dated
26.11.2019 passed in the case has been
affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. A very short question has been raised. The
revisionist and the respondent no. 2 both are in job.
According to the revisionist, his wife i.e. Respondent no. 2
gets Rs. 42,000/- per month salary and he gets Rs. 32,000/-
per month salary. Taking note of these facts, the court below
directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per
month as interim maintenance.
4. It is argued that the amount is on higher side
because the respondent no. 2 is already employed and is
getting salary higher than the revisionist.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private
respondents would submit that it is the legal and moral duty
of the revisionist to maintain his son. He is not taking care of
his son and is not paying any maintenance. According to the
learned counsel for the private respondents, the amount of
interim maintenance is not excessive.
6. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, in fact, does not provide for apportionment of the
amount of maintenance in case both the parents are earning.
The impugned order has been passed as an interim
maintenance. Admittedly, the respondent no. 3 is with his
mother, who is respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is a
teacher. The impugned order records that as per revisionist,
her salary is Rs. 42,000/-. There is less dispute about it.
There is also less dispute about it that the salary of the
revisionist is Rs. 33,000/-.
7. Can it be said that, in fact, the respondent no. 2
was not in need of money to maintain his son, respondent no.
3? Whether these proceedings reflect that merely to get some
share from the revisionist, the respondent no. 2 claims
interim maintenance for her son? These are the questions,
which would find determination during the trial of the case.
8. If the salary, which is told to the court below is
admitted, after such payment of Rs. 8,000/- to respondent
no. 2, the revisionist would be left with only Rs. 25,000/-,
whereas the respondent no. 2 would be having Rs. 50,000/-
per month. It cannot be said to be a correct apportionment
either.
9. Having considered the limited question of
adequacy or excessiveness of the amount of interim
maintenance, this Court is of the view that Rs. 4,000/- as
interim maintenance may be provided to respondent no. 3.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.11.2019
passed in the case deserves to be modified.
11. The revisionist shall pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as
interim maintenance to respondent no. 2. Impugned order is
modified to the extent as above.
12. The revision is disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
16.11.2022
Avneet/
