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