Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Prerna vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2023
Smt. Prerna ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Surendra Kumar Bahl, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order dated 22.11.2023, passed in Case No.201 of
2022, Smt. Prerna Vs. Ravish Kumar, by the court of
Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar
("the case"). By it, the respondent no.2 has been directed
to pay Rs. 6,000/-, as interim maintenance, to the
revisionist.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. Notices were served on the respondent
no.2, but none is present for the respondent no.2.
4. The case is based on an application filed
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("the Code") by the revisionist seeking maintenance
for herself from the respondent no.2. In the case, an
application for interim maintenance was filed, which has
been allowed by the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the inadequate interim maintenance has
been awarded. It is argued that the respondent no.2 is a
government servant and his salary is Rs. 24,997/- per
month. He also earns from other sources. Therefore, the
amount of maintenance needs to be enhanced.
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that
according to the revisionist, the respondent no.2 gets Rs.
40,000/- per month by rent of the car, Rs. 40,000/- by
rent, and Rs. 60,000/- as salary.
7. The Court wanted to know as to which
document has been filed in support of the income from
other sources of the respondent no.2? Learned counsel
for the revisionist would submit that no such document
has been filed with regard to the income from the car or
from rent. At this stage, it may not be taken into
consideration. In fact, the revisionist has claimed that
the respondent no.2 gets Rs.60,000/- per month, as
salary. As per his pay slip, his salary is total Rs.
24,997/-, per month.
8. The impugned order records that the
revisionist was appointed under the Dying in Harness
Rules in place of his father. He has liability to maintain
his one brother and 2 sisters. His mother gets family
pension. Even if the mother of the respondent no.2 is
excluded, the respondent no.2 has liability to maintain 5
persons, including the revisionist, and his total salary is
about Rs. 25,000/-. Rs. 6,000/- per month, as interim
maintenance, has been awarded. In view of the
resources of the respondent no.2, the amount of interim
maintenance, which has been awarded, cannot be
termed as inadequate.
9. Having considered, 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
distance.
10. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
11.02.2025
Ravi Bisht
