Rahul Gandhi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2856 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 511 of 2022


Rahul Gandhi                                          ....Revisionist

                                   Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                    ..... Respondents


Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the order dated 02.06.2022, passed in Case No. 184 of

2021, Smt. Vartika Vs. Shri Rahul Gandhi, by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani ("the case"). By

it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-

per month as interim maintenance to the respondent

no.2 and it has been directed that the amount shall be

paid from the date of filing of the application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist is through ready and willing

to keep his wife with him; even he is ready to stay with

his wife at Haldwani, in a rental accommodation; the

amount of maintenance cannot be paid by the revisionist

at once; he may be given 2-3 months time to pay this

amount and the proceedings of the recovery may be

stayed.

4. The impugned order has been passed on an

interim maintenance application filed by the respondent

no.2. In the impugned order, the court has discussed

the rival contentions of both the parties with regard to

the reason for staying separate as well as the financial

resources.

5. The order is yet not final. Parties have

ample opportunity to make all efforts for amicable

settlement. In fact, if it is done, it will be a win-win

position for both the parties.

6. In so far as the time for payment of money

is concerned, the revisionist is always free to move an

application to the court concerned. This Court has no

doubt that if bona fide is expressed instead of ensuring

coercive methods, perhaps, the revisionist may be given

sometime to make the payment.

7. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any

interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the

revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

8. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.09.2022 Ravi Bisht