CRLR/867/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 2940 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/867/2024 on 13 June, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  CRLR No.867 of 2024
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Rajat Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the revisionist.

2. Mr. Vaibhav Mahtola, Advocate for the respondent. Delay condonation application in time barred (IA No.2 of 2024)

3. As per office report, this is a time barred revision and there is a delay of 31 days in filing the instant revision.

4. Despite opportunity of filing objection in the delay condonation application, counsel for respondent does not want to file written objection; however he submitted that the reason stated in the delay condonation application are not sufficient enough to condone the delay.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the delay condonation application, this Court is of the view that since there is a delay of 31 days in filing the instant revision, the reasons are sufficient enough to condone the delay. The delay of 31 days in filing the instant revision is condoned.

6. Accordingly delay condonation application is allowed.

7. This is a criminal revision filed by the revisionist-husband against judgment and order dated 30.07.2024, passed by learned Family Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Case No.270 of 2023, Jaanki Bisht Vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht, whereby the interim maintenance of ₹14,000/- was granted to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance i.e., 22.06.2023 and it is further directed that the respondent shall deposit the said amount on 10th of

every month, till final disposal of this case.

8. It is argued by counsel for the revisionist that the respondent-wife is residing in the house of the revisionist- husband while revisionist-husband is residing in a rented accommodation.

9. It is further submitted by counsel for the revisionist that the wife has two major sons, who are employed in good service and earn sufficient amount to maintain their mother.

10. The argument which has been flouted by revisionist is totally bereft of merit.

11. It is duty of the respondent to maintain her wife. Moreover the maintenance, which has been granted to the wife is interim, till disposal of the miscellaneous criminal case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

12. In this view of the matter, no interference is required.

13. Accordingly criminal revision is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.06.2025 SK