CRLR/217/2013
2025 Latest Caselaw 2295 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/217/2013 on 7 March, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                      Of f ice N ot e s,
                    re port s, or de rs
                    or proce e din gs
SL. N o.   Da t e     or dire ct ion s                                  COURT'S OR JU DGE'S ORDERS
                    a n d Re gist ra r's
                        orde r w it h
                       Sign a t u re s


                                           CRLR No.217 of 2013
                                           Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. Mr. Raman K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Crl. Case No.22 of 2012, Jyoti Singh v Deepak Kr. Singh whereby the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,700 per month as maintenance the respondent u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Facts in nutshell are that in this matter, both the parties were married to each other. However, on account of certain scores between them, the wife was compelled to stay at her maternal house. Seeking maintenance, she moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the court below @Rs.20,000/- per month. The revisionist filed his written statement and prayed that the application be dismissed. The Court below directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance @Rs.2700/- per month from the date of institution of application i.e. 16.03.2012. Hence this revision by the husband.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the papers on file.

6. It is not in dispute that the parties are married to each other. The revisionist is having a printing press besides having 3.5 acres of agricultural land. On the other hand, respondent-wife is an uneducated lady having no source of income. It is the duty enjoined upon a husband to maintain his wife. Admittedly, the revisionist had already re-married after taking divorce from the respondent-wife.

7. Having gone through the entire facts, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The findings given by the Court below are the findings of facts on the basis of evidence led before it. I find no ground to disagree with the same.

8. Moreover revisional powers u/s 397/401 are very limited only to the extent of examining any material illegality. However, no such illegality is found in this matter.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.

10. Since the stay order has already been vacated in this matter, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.03.2025 R.Dang