Uttarakhand High Court
Joga Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2025
Joga Singh Bisht ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order dated 08.08.2024, passed in Criminal Case
No.340 of 2023, Smt. Geeta Devi and Another Vs. Joga
Singh, by the court of Family Judge, Haldwani, District
Nainital ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been
directed to pay Rs. 7,500/-, as interim maintenance, to
the respondent no.2, SMt. Geeta Bisht, his wife and Rs.
6,500/-, as interim maintenance to the respondent no.3,
Shaurabh Bisht, his son, till he attains majority.
2. The revision is delayed. A Delay
Condonation Application (IA No.1 of 2025) has been
filed.
3. Heard on Delay Condonation Application.
4. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that delay in filing the revision may be condoned.
5. The delay condonation application is
allowed.
6. The delay in filing the revision is condoned.
7. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
8. The case is based on an application filed
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("the Code") by the respondent no.2, seeking
maintenance for herself and her minor son, the
respondent no.3. According to the respondent no.2, she
and the revisionist were married on 11.12.1998. They
were blessed with a son. The revisionist was Army
personnel. After retirement, he started harassing the
respondent no.2. He also threatened her to divorce and
stopped paying maintenance to her.
9. The revisionist did file his objections.
According to him, the respondent no.2 had been
pressurizing the revisionist to seek re-employment and
had committed cruelty with him and had expelled him
out of his house in the month of December, 2022. In the
case, an application for interim maintenance has also
been filed.
10. After hearing the parties, the court
observed that the revisionist is retired Army personnel,
who gets Rs. 30,738/- as pension. There are allegations
that he also earns Rs. 10,000/- per month from
agriculture. The court below also observed that the
respondent no.2 is not able to maintain herself, and
having considered, passed the impugned order.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the respondent no.3, his son, has already
attained majority in the month of January, 2024.
Beyond that he is not entitled to get maintenance. It is
also argued that the respondent no.2 did not mention
the date of birth of her son, the respondent no.3, in the
application under Section 125 of the Code; in fact, it is
the respondent no.2, who had committed cruelty to the
revisionist and has expelled him out of his house, and
the revisionist is staying separate and is maintaining his
85 years old aged-ailing mother.
12. Admittedly, the revisionist is the husband
of the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.3 is their
son. The impugned order categorically records that the
respondent no.3 shall get interim maintenance till he
attain majority. Therefore, that issue does not require
any further deliberation.
13. Insofar as the cause for staying separate is
concerned, there are divergent versions of the parties.
On the one hand, according to the revisionist, he has
been expelled from his house by the respondent no.2,
and he is staying separate. On the other hand, according
to the respondent no.2, she is being harassed and
tortured by the revisionist and the revisionist also
threatens to divorce her.
14. What would be the reason for staying
separate, perhaps, the court may record a conclusive
finding once the parties are permitted to lead evidence.
15. The revisionist has not shown as to what is
the income of the respondent no.2. It has not been
established that the respondent no.2 is able to maintain
herself. As stated, the respondent no.2 has categorically
stated that she is not able to maintain herself. The court
has noted that the pension of the revisionist is Rs.
30,738/-, and having considered, the court has awarded
total Rs. 14,000/- per month, as interim maintenance,
to the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
16. Be it noted, the respondent no. 3 has been
awarded interim maintenance till he attains majority,
which, according to the learned counsel for the
revisionist, he has already attained in the month of
January, 2024. It further means that after attainment of
majority of the respondent no.3, the respondent no.3,
the revisionist is only liable to pay Rs.7,500/- per
month, as interim maintenance to the respondent no.3.
17. Under the facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the view that there is no error, illegality and
impropriety in the impugned order. The impugned order
does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the
revision deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of
admission itself.
18. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
11.02.2025
Ravi Bisht
