Naveen Babbar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1630 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 367 of 2023


Naveen Babbar                                        ......Revisionist

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand                             ........Respondents
Present:- Mr. Siddhartha Singh Negi, Advocate for the revisionist.
         Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. along with Mr. B.S. Thind, Brief
         Holder for the State.

                                                Dated : 12.06.2023

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2023, passed

by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Case No. 142 of

2021, whereby the interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-

has been awarded in favour of respondent no.3.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the appellate court has committed manifest

error in awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- in

favour of the respondent no.3 without considering the

evidence available on record; that, the respondent no.3 is

wilfully living separately from the revisionist; that, the

revisionist has filed an application under Section 25 of

the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of minor

child from respondent no.2; that respondent no.2/wife is

an earning lady, therefore, she is not entitled for any

interim maintenance, thus, the impugned orders are

liable to be set aside.

3. Learned State vehemently opposed the

submission advanced by learned counsel for the

revisionist and he supported the impugned orders passed

by the court below.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on file.

5. It is trite that the scope of jurisdiction of

revision is not as vast as that of appeal. In my view, while

considering the revision application, the revisional court

would have a limited scope, however, while deciding the

appeal, the appellate Court has a wide jurisdiction than

that of the revisional jurisdiction. In the revisional

jurisdiction, the Court has to see whether there is any

illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order

assailed before the Court, or any irregularly in the

proceedings adopted by the court below.

6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the

court below had partly allowed the application for interim

maintenance filed by the respondent wife and granted

interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of minor

son only and has rejected the application for

respondent/wife. Admittedly, the revisionist is working as

Deputy Manager in a Concentrix Company at Gurgaon

and it is admitted that as per the disclosure of assets in

the lower court, he is getting Rs.60,000/- per month as

salary, thus, the interim maintenance granted the minor

would not be said on the higher side.

7. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the court

below shows that the court has dealt with all the aspects

of the matter and has thereafter passed the impugned

judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not

point out any other irregularity in the proceedings of the

lower court or any impropriety, illegality and

incorrectness in the impugned orders.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this

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

interference in the impugned judgment and order. The

revision deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage.

10. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed in

limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 12.06.2023 Mamta