C482/853/2016
2024 Latest Caselaw 559 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

C482/853/2016 on 3 April, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

             Office    Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date   or    directions                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             and Registrar's
             order       with
             Signatures
                                C-482 No. 853 of 2016
                                Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Himanshu Yadav proxy counsel for Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.

3. Ms. Radha Arya, proxy counsel for Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, counsel for respondent no.2.

4. Present C-482 petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband to quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 365 of 2015 and to dismiss the application of respondent no.2 for grant of maintenance pending before the said Family Court. 5 The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage of petitioner/husband and respondent no. 2/wife was solemnized on 28.05.2014 in accordance with muslim rites and rituals and from the said wedlock, one female child was born; that, when the family members of the respondent no.2 did not fulfill the demand of dowry, the family of the petitioner evicted her from the matrimonial house on 04.07.2015; that, respondent no.2/wife being unable to maintain herself and her child filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; that, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide order dated 28.05.2016 directed the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 4000/- per month to respondent no.2/wife; that, feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband.

6. Counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that the order dated 28.05.2016 is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the court below without considering the fact of the case has passed the order of interim maintenance on a higher side.

7. To this, counsel for the respondent no.2/wife would submit that the court below has rightly passed the impugned order as proper reasoning has been given in the said order; that, Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has observed that the husband is duty bound to pay maintenance to his wife and minor children, even in the absence of regular income.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.

9. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after going through records available on file, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit in which the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should venture in the propriety of the impugned order, which other neither smacks and malice nor it is contrary to the provisions contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the C-482 petition, therefore, lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 03.04.2024 Mamta