Sri Kuljeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2549 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sri Kuljeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 November, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 773 of 2024

Sri Kuljeet Singh                                     ....Revisionist

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ..... Respondents


Present:-
Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vipul Painluly, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Arjun Arora, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3


                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to

the order of interim maintenance dated 08.08.2024,

passed in Criminal Case No.73 of 2023, Smt. Swati Kaur

Vs. Kuljeet Singh, by the court of Family Judge,

Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been

directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month interim

maintenance to the respondent no.2, his wife, and Rs.

10,000/- per month interim maintenance to the

respondent no.3, his son.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. The respondent no.2 filed an application

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, seeking maintenance from the revisionist for

herself and her son, the respondent no.3, which is the

basis of the case. In the case, an application for interim

maintenance was filed.

4. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that

she and the revisionist was married on 02.09.2018, but

after marriage, she was harassed and tortured by the

revisionist and his family members. She gave birth to the

respondent no.3, her son, on 16.10.2019. The revisionist

is not keeping her with him. She is not able to maintain

herself, whereas, the revisionist is a Doctor in the

Government Department, who gets Rs. 90,000/- per

month salary

5. The revisionist did file objections to it. He

denied all the allegations of harassment. It is admitted

that he and the respondent no.2 are staying separate.

The revisionist has also admitted that he earns

Rs.90,000/- per month, as salary.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that there are chances of settlement between the

parties; the revisionist has responsibility to look after his

parents also.

7. Admittedly, the revisionist and the

respondent no.2 are husband and wife. They are blessed

with a son, the respondent no.3. Parties are staying

separate. It has been the case of the respondent no.2

that she is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the

revisionist is a Doctor working in a Government

Department, and earns Rs. 90,000/- per month. It has

been admitted by the revisionist also. The court has

awarded total Rs. 25,000/- having considered the

financial condition of the parties. This Court does not

see any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned

order. 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.

8. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.11.2024 Ravi Bisht

RAVI

2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a 59f37e6d2018d38d0b669a5c068799391e6

BISHT bb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485E D764961E4E52FD29C6F03C20917020ED09 3405536, cn=RAVI BISHT Date: 2024.11.07 16:04:21 +05'30'