Uttarakhand High Court
Paras Nath vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2022
Paras Nath ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Mr. Prakash Chandra, 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 of interim maintenance dated 28.04.2022,
passed in Criminal Case No. 158 of 2021, Km. Bhavya
and Another Vs. Paras Nath, by the Family Court,
Haridwar ("the case").
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are daughters
of the revisionist. The revisionist and his wife, both are
working. The impugned order records that the net salary
of the wife of the revisionist is Rs. 63,816/- and the net
salary of the revisionist, according to the impugned
order is Rs. 77,557/-. The respondent nos. 2 and 3,
through their mother, filed an application seeking
maintenance from the revisionist, which is the basis of
the case. The application for interim maintenance was
filed, which has been allowed and the revisionist has
been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to each of the
respondent nos. 2 & 3. Aggrieved by it, the instant
revision is filed.
4. At the very outset, it is brought to the
notice of the Court that earlier the respondent nos. 2 & 3
had also filed Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2022,
challenging the same impugned order, which has been
dismissed.
5. It is strange that the Registry of this Court
has not given details of the earlier revision, which was
based on the same impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist has taken loan, which has
not been deducted; he has given a flat to his wife where
the respondent no. 2 & 3 are staying; the revisionist is
also paying certain policy premiums; he is ready and
willing to keep his wife and the respondent nos. 2 & 3
with him; he has also filed a petition under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, it is argued
that the total maintenance may be reduced from Rs.
20,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-.
7. When the respondent nos. 2 & 3 filed
earlier revision (Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2022), the
Court, in para 7 of the order dated 14.07.2022 observed
that, "What are the other financial resources of the
parties? What are their liabilities? These all issues
may perhaps fall for scrutiny at the time of final
adjudication of the application under Section 125 of
the Code."
8. Maintenance and, particularly, interim
maintenance has some amount of subjectivity always.
With precision, it cannot be said that as to what amount
exactly would be sufficient to maintain a person. Here is
the case where both the parents are working.
Independently, if considered, even the mother of the
respondent nos. 2 & 3 could maintain them. But it is
also settled law that the amount of maintenance should
be commensurate to the social status of the parties
concerned. The salary of the revisionist is little higher
than his wife. The revisionist has been asked to pay Rs.
20,000/- in total to the respondent nos. 2 & 3. By no
stretch of imagination it can be said to be excessive.
9. In view of it, this Court does not see any
reason to make any interference. The revision has no
merit and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
10. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.09.2022
Ravi Bisht
