Nagendra Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 183 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Nagendra Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 7 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Criminal Misc. Application No.614 of 2022
Nagendra Bisht                                      .........Applicant

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                     .........Respondents

                                 With

           Criminal Misc. Application No.615 of 2022
Nagendra Bisht                                      .........Applicant

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                     .........Respondents

Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Sweta B. Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Since common question of law and fact are involved and the parties in both the matters are one and the same, hence these C482 applications are being decided by this common judgment.

2. C-482 Application No.614 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Revision No.02 of 2022 (Nagendra Bisht vs. Smt. Ranjana Bisht), whereby, the revision preferred by the applicant has been dismissed and further challenge has been made to the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.96 of 2020 (Ranjana Bisht & another vs. Nagendra Bisht), whereby, the

said court has directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to his wife and Rs.5,000/- to his minor son as maintenance from the date of order i.e. 16.11.2021.

3. C482 Application No.615 of 2022 has been filed assailing the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Revision No.07 of 2021 (Smt. Ranjana Bisht and another vs. Sri Nagendra Bisht), whereby, the said court has allowed the revision and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs.7,500/- per month to his wife and son respectively from the date of filing of application. He has also challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.96 of 2020 (Ranjana Bisht and another vs. Nagendra Bisht).

4. Facts in nutshell are that applicant and respondent no.2 are the husband and the wife. The respondent no.2-wife moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, on 16.10.2020, the said application was decided vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2021, whereby, the applicant-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to his wife and minor son for maintenance from the date of order.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.2 of 2022 challenging the amount of maintenance at the same time Criminal Revision No.7 of 2021 was also filed by the respondent-wife Smt. Ranjana Bisht and her son seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance. The revisional court by way of judgment and order dated 08.04.2022 has dismissed the revision preferred

by the applicant being Criminal Revision No.2 of 2022 and at the same time allowed the revision preferred by the respondent-wife and her minor son and awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-wife and Rs.7500/- (Instead of Rs.5,000/- as directed by the trial court) from the date of order. Challenging both the orders, the applicant has come up before this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in the file.

7. It is admitted to the parties that the applicant and respondent no.2 were the parties to the matrimony. Out of the wedlock, one child (respondent no.3) was also born. The revisional court also recorded a finding of fact that the applicant retired from the Indian Army from where he gets Rs.25,000/- as pension besides Rs.25,000/- as income from NCC Office. Thus total income of the applicant was calculated @ Rs.45,000/- per month. Revisional court also reached to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was sufficient for the maintenance of respondent-wife.

8. However, keeping in mind, the inflation and other reasons viz admission of child in a good school proper nutrition and education, the amount of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the trial court was insufficient. The revision court, keeping in mind, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, maintained the awarding of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the respondent-wife, but at the same time, has enhanced the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent no.3- child.

9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the finding of fact recorded by the revisional court, I find no good ground to interfere in the judgment passed by the revisional court. There is hardly any scope of interference. Keeping in mind, the inflation and other associated factors viz the demand of the minor child this amount does not appear to be exorbitant.

10 In that view of the matter, both these C482 applications are accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 07.05.2022 passed in both these matters is hereby vacated and inform the court below.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.05.2025 Ravi