Shakir Mohd. Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3326 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 614 of 2022


Shakir Mohd. Ali                                     ....Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                 ..... Respondents


Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate 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 cognizance and summoning order dated 18.08.2022,

passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 125 of 2022, Smt.

Malika Shahin Vs. Shakir Mohd Ali, by the court of

Family Judge, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun ("the

case") as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. It appears that an order, under Section 125

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was passed in

favour of the respondent no.2, who is the wife of the

revisionist.

4. On 18.08.2022, the respondent no.2 filed

an application seeking enhancement of the maintenance,

which is basis of the case, in which notices were issued

on 18.08.2022. It is impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that after the order for maintenance was passed,

parties had entered into a settlement. Pursuant to it, Rs.

1,50,000/- had already been paid by the revisionist to

the respondent no.2. Some of the cases, which were in

the State of Uttarakhand, have already been settled, but,

subsequently, the respondent no.2 did not appear to

settle the dispute pertaining to divorce. Therefore, the

remaining amount, under settlement, could not be paid.

It is argued that, moving an application for enhancement

of maintenance, is nothing but abuse of process of law.

6. The argument, as advanced, has less merit

for acceptance. According to the revisionist himself, the

agreement has not taken place in full. The respondent

no.2 did not settle the dispute amicably pertaining to

divorce between the parties. The revisionist did not pay

the entire amount under settlement for one reason or

another. Moreover, by the impugned order, as such no

determination has been done. Merely on an application

for enhancement on maintenance, notices have been

issued to the revisionist. The revisionist is free to file his

objection and raise all those pleas before the concerned

court. This Court has no doubt that if such a plea is

taken, the court would consider and decide it in

accordance with law. Accordingly, the revision deserves

to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

7. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.10.2022 Ravi Bisht