Dheeraj Kapoor vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Case No. 161 of 2017, whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the second respondent herein and Rs. 8,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the third respondent herein.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to the revisionist. Even the material evidence has not been considered by the learned Court below.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and the revisionist has not paid any amount of maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and more than seven lakh of arrear is made out.

It was agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs. 2 Lakh from the pending arrear would be paid by the revisionist within a period of two months and on this undertaking, the execution proceedings of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below was stayed.

Thereafter, in compliance of this Court’s order dated 31.03.2022, on 18.04.2022, learned counsel for the revisionist handed over a draft of Rs. 50,000/- before the Court to Mrs. Poonam Kapoor (mother of respondent nos. 2 & 3). It was undertaken by the revisionist that Rs. 50,000/- would be paid on the next date of listing, i.e. 02.05.2022, and Rs. 1,00,000/-would be paid to Mrs. Poonam Kapoor (mother of respondent nos. 2 & 3) on or before 06.05.2022 as the remaining amount of undertaking given by the revisionist. Today, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been handed over by the revisionist to Mrs. Poonam Kapoor (mother of respondent nos. 2 & 3 via three bank drafts. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) has been given by the revisionist to Mrs. Poonam Kapoor.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the revisionist limits his prayer only to the extent that the matter may be remanded back to the lower Court for its expeditious disposal by giving fresh opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence before the Court below.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has no objection to the prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the present criminal revision is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The matter is remanded back to the learned Court below to decide the same afresh without being prejudiced, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

(ii) Till the final disposal of the case by the Court below, the revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the second respondent and shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the third respondent. However, the learned Court below shall be at liberty to either reduce or enhance the amount of maintenance after hearing learned counsel for both the parties.

(iii) Fresh opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence shall be given by the lower Court to the revisionist and respondent nos. 2 & 3, herein, however, if the opportunity is not availed, the trial Court is at liberty to move as per law.

(iv) Till the final disposal of the present matter, the recovery of arrears, if any, in pursuance to the impugned judgment and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by learned Family Court Judge, Haridwar, shall remain stayed. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which has been given to Mrs. Poonam Kapoor (mother of respondent nos. 2 & 3) be adjusted in the arrear, if any.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.