Uttarakhand High Court
Vikas Kumar vs Vandana on 25 November, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 640 of 2024
Vikas Kumar ....Revisionist
Vs.
Vandana ..... Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Deepak Chandra, Advocate for the revisionist.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order of interim maintenance dated 24.07.2024,
passed in Case No.19 of 2024, Smt. Vandana Vs. Vikas,
by the court of Family Judge, Haridwar ("the case"). By
it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to
the respondent, per month, as interim maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The respondent filed an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
("the Code"), seeking maintenance from the revisionist.
According to the respondent, she and the revisionist
were married on 22.02.2023, but after marriage, she was
harassed and tortured in her in-laws' house for and in
connection with the demand of dowry. She was beaten
up, and finally, expelled from her matrimonial home on
05.10.2023. The respondent is staying in her parents'
house. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the
revisionist is a man of means.
4. In the case, an application for interim
maintenance was also filed, which has been objected to
by the revisionist. In his objections, the revisionist has
admitted that he works on contract basis and his
monthly income is Rs. 14,832/-, per month.
5. At the time of hearing the application for
interim maintenance, none appeared for the revisionist.
The court, after perusing the record and hearing learned
counsel for the respondent, passed the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist has already filed a suit for
Restitution of Conjugal Rights; the revisionist is ready
and willing to keep his wife with him; he has ailing
father. He would also submit that if notices are issued,
perhaps, parties may arrive at a settlement.
7. Only for exploring the possibility of
amicable settlement between the parties, notices in such
matters, like the instant one, may not be issued. There
are limited grounds for interfering in the revision. After
all the order that is impugned is the interim
maintenance order. The proceedings are still pending in
the court below. Parties may still explore the possibility
of settlement in that court.
8. It is admitted that the respondent is legally
wedded wife of the respondent. She is staying separate.
There are divergent versions with regard to the cause of
separation. It would finally be determined once parties
are permitted to adduce evidence. The respondent states
that she is not able to maintain herself. According to the
revisionist, he gets Rs. 14,832/-, per month, as salary.
Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded to the respondent, as
interim maintenance. This order, in the view of this
Court, does not 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.)
25.11.2024
Ravi Bisht
RAVI
2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b
52d4a59f37e6d2018d38d0b669a5c0
68799391e6bb, postalCode=263001,
BISHT
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652A
E5485ED764961E4E52FD29C6F03C2
0917020ED093405536, cn=RAVI
BISHT
Date: 2024.11.25 17:02:40 +05'30'
