Uttarakhand High Court
Dayaram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 137 of 2023
With
Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2023
Dayaram ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, 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 11.07.2022,
passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 60 of 2020, Smt.
Urmila and Others Vs. Dayaram, by the court of Family
Judge, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun ("the case"). But it
is delayed. A Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of
2023 has been filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. Having considered the grounds for delay,
the delay is condoned.
4. The delay condonation application is
allowed.
5. Heard on admission.
6. By the impugned order, the revisionist has
been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the
private respondent Smt. Urmila as interim maintenance.
7. The record reveals that the private
respondent filed an application seeking maintenance
from the revisionist under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the basis of the case.
In that case, an application for interim maintenance has
also been filed, which has been allowed by the impugned
order.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist is a labourer. The facts of the
case are quite distinct. The private respondent was
married with the revisionist and his brother on the same
date. It is argued that the private respondent has two
children also, but they have not been provided
maintenance.
9. The impugned order, in Para three, records
that it is the revisionist, who has admitted marriage
between him and the private respondent on 01.02.2004.
The court considered the reasons for staying separate
also and the means of both the parties. Though, the
private respondent claims that the revisionist earns Rs.
15,000/- per month, which was not accepted. The court
took note of the legal principles that even an able-bodied
person is under obligation to maintain his wife. Rs.
4,000/- per month interim maintenance has been
awarded. It cannot be said to be on higher side.
Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make
any interference in this revision. Accordingly, the
revision deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of
admission itself.
10. The revision is dismissed in limine.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the
revisionist would submit that the revisionist may be
granted some time to pay the arrears.
12. The revisionist is always free to move such
application before the court concerned, which this Court
has, no doubt, would be decided, keeping in view the
fact and circumstances of the case.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.02.2023
Ravi Bisht
