Ankit Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The present revision has been preferred by the revisionist-husband, wherein he has questioned the propriety of the order dated 13th December 2018, as rendered by the learned Family Court, Haridwar in Case No. 78 of 2018, Smt. Priyanka Gupta and another v. Ankit Gupta, which was preferred by the respondent-wife by invoking the provisions contained under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. At the time of the institution of the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the case which was projected before the Court below was that the revisionist-husband was engaged in the United States and he was having a handsome income of about $ 90,000 per annum, which was equivalent to about Rs. 60.00 lakh per year as per the valuation in Indian currency.

The fact of the income, which was allegedly pleaded by respondent No. 2 accruing to the revisionist-husband as contended by the respondent-wife though was denied from the viewpoint that the said income might have been a accruing at the time when he was engaged in the United States; but, as of now under the change circumstances, he has now taken up a job in Bangalore and consequent thereto, there is a considerable reduction in his annual income, which is accruing to him, consequently, the determination of interim maintenance ought not to be made on the basis of foundation of income which has been projected in the Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by respondent wife on the basis of income which he had when he was serving in the United States.

He submits that under the Indian conditions of service, the same cannot be compared, as to with income the revisionist had when he was working in United States.

This Court while considering the revision which was filed with a delay condonation application, which has been reported by Registry that there was a delay of about 32 days and the Court had initially issued notices on it to the respondent to put in appearance and to place her version in defence.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties, when they have put in appearance including the parties also in-person this Court felt that considering the fact that they have a minor child, who is to be taken care of and the parties to the lis owes a joint responsibility towards the child, and his interest ought to have played a predominant role in settling the matrimonial discord which is persisting between the parties, this Court has made an endeavour, calling upon the parties to appear in the Chamber at 1:30 p.m. today to conduct the proceedings of mediation, but unfortunately, the proceedings could not succeed because the respondent has expressed her opinion that she absolutely distrust the revisionist, and she is not in a position to carry on the matrimonial relationship with him anymore. However, this observation made may not be having any impact when their cases are being decided obviously which has to be decided on its own merits, for the reason that this statement of respondent it was a part of the mediation proceedings, which had taken place in the Chamber of the Judge, that was absolutely a personal effort which was made to settle their score, but unfortunately it could not succeed. Thus, this Court has got no option because despite of best efforts, the parties could not be brought to a common platform

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that with the present engagement, which the revisionist is having at Bangalore he only has an income of about Rs. 84,941/- per month which is the carry home salary which he is receiving from his present engagement. Though this document cannot be taken into consideration at this stage because it is not a part of the evidence in the present proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C, this document could be placed before the Family Court, itself where the principal application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is taken into consideration, itself on merits. Since at this stage the revision which has been presented before this Court is only against an order dated 13th December 2018, which is only an interim arrangement which has been made by the learned Family Court, on the application under sub Section (2) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C for the grant of an interim maintenance, claimed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by way of paper number 14 (a), which was objected by the revisionist-husband by filing an objection paper number 17 (a), denying the very foundation of interim application as to be malicious, but the Court considering the income, which was projected in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, has fixed an interim maintenance which has been held payable to be of Rs. 40,000/- per month i.e. payable to the respondent-wife and Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 3.

Since this was only against an order of interim arrangement which was made by the learned Family Court which was to pervade only during the pendency of consideration of the main 125 Application, which was yet to be decided on its own merit, and considering the fact that since an effort of mediations which was conducted today has failed and the parties are not willing to resolve the dispute amicably, this Court has got no option except to dispose of this revision with a request to learned Family Court to decide the principal application under Section 125 within a period of three months from today. For a period of 3 months, the maintenance, which has been directed by the learned Family Court to be paid by the revisionist-husband to the respondent-wife, the revisionist-husband would ensure to remit the same to the respondent-wife by 10th of each month and the application under Section 125 would be adjudicated on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made above.

Subject to above observations the revision stands disposed of.