Manoj Kumar Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2977 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 526 of 2022


Manoj Kumar Saini                                  ....Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                  ..... Respondents


Mr. Pranav Singh, 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

order dated 27.07.2022, passed in Case No. 155 of 2021,

Anjali @ Priya Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini, by the Family

Court, Haridwar ("the case"). By the impugned order, the

application for interim maintenance, filed by the

respondent no.2 for herself and her daughter, the

respondent no.3, has been allowed and the revisionist

has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the respondent

no.2 and Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent no.3 per month

as interim maintenance.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist and the respondent no.2,

who is the wife of the revisionist have already mutually

settled the dispute between them and started staying

separate from each other. Under the settlement, it is

argued that the revisionist had paid Rs. 2 Lakhs to the

respondent no.2 as one time final settlement. Therefore,

it is argued that in view of Section 125(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, ("the Code"), the wife is not

entitled to receive any maintenance from the revisionist.

4. Facts reveal that, in fact, in a proceeding

under Section 125 of the Code, the respondent no.2 filed

an application for interim maintenance, which has been

allowed by the impugned order and the revisionist has

been directed to pay interim maintenance as above.

5. Undoubtedly, under Section 125(4) of the

Code, the wife, if stays separate from her husband by

mutual consent, is not entitled to receive maintenance.

6. In the instant case, it has been argued on

behalf of the revisionist that on 24.06.2022, a settlement

did take place between the revisionist and the

respondent no.2. This has also been argued by the

revisionist in the court below. In Page 3 of the impugned

order, from Paragraph 2 onwards, the court has

discussed this aspect. The revisionist claimed that in

terms of settlement, he paid Rs. 2 Lakhs in cash to the

respondent no.2, but the respondent no.2 denied of

having received any such amount. It remains disputed.

It is not admitted to the respondent no.2, the wife, that

she is living separate from the revisionist by mutual

consent. Perhaps, during trial of the case, parties may

adduce evidence and this factum may find final

determination. But the fact remains, at this stage, it is

not admitted to the respondent no.2, the wife, that she is

staying separate by mutual consent. Therefore, it cannot

be said that on mere assertion of the revisionist, the

respondent no.2 could have been denied interim

maintenance.

7. No other point has been raised in this

revision.

8. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that the impugned order is in

accordance with law. This Court does not see any reason

to warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision

deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

9. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.09.2022 Ravi Bisht