Gulbahar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

This criminal revision has been preferred by the husband (revisionist herein), challenging the two orders, that is, the initial order dated 6th November 2017, as passed by the learned Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby while considering the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 393 of 2016, Km. Shabnoor v. Gulbahar, the learned Family Court has directed the revisionist-husband to remit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each month as an interim maintenance to the respondent No. 2 (wife).

Since the said amount was not remitted to the respondent No. 2 (wife), by the revisionist, she was constrained to file an application paper No. 19 (ga) before the learned Family Court for a direction to CMO for directing for making deduction of the said maintenance as has been determined by the Court on 06.11.2017, from the salary of the revisionist-husband itself and consequently, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 9th July 2018, directing the CMO, Rudraprayag to make the deductions from the salary, (i.e. @ Rs. 10,000/- per month) at source from the salary of the revisionist-husband and remit the same to the respondent No. 2 (wife) in her account standing in Punjab National Bank, branch Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. It is these two orders, which are under challenge before this Court in the instant revision, which has been preferred by the revisionist-husband, with delay of 227 days.

As far as the delay is concerned, the revisionist has assigned the reasons in the Delay Condonation Application, from the viewpoint that he was unable to contact his counsel in order to seek an appropriate advice for the redressal of his grievance against the impugned orders. On account of an inappropriate legal advice being extended to him, he was earlier not in a position to file a revision against the impugned orders, by virtue of which interim maintenance has been determined by the learned Family Court to be remitted by him to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife.

After having considered the reasons assigned in the delay condonation application, though the same is being opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delay which has chanced in filing the revision should not be condoned, because it happens to be an inordinate delay of 227 days with no justifiable, satisfactory reasons given in it. But considering the aspects that it is a dispute which is arising out of a matrimonial discord and it has the social obligations and impact too, this Court is of the view that a rational and pragmatic approach should be adopted while determining the limitation liberally, particularly, when it relates to delay, which has been caused in a litigation which has got a settlement of a personal relationship, arising out of a matrimonial dispute. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that the issue of limitation is not to harm anyone, particularly when due to condonation of delay, it will materially not effect any right of the adversary.

Considering the said implications and the affect on the family with regards to the delay which has chanced in filing the present revision, the delay deserves to be condoned and accordingly being satisfied with the reasons, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. The revision is treated to have been filed within time.

With the consent of the parties and their respective grounds, the criminal revision itself is taken up on merits of the matter. As per the impugned orders under challenge i.e. initially, the order dated 6th November 2017, the learned Family Court, while considering the application on its merit under sub Section (2) of Section 125 of CrPC, filed by the respondent No. 2 (wife) claiming for a determination of an interim maintenance to be paid to her to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month, the learned Family Court, after considering the rival contentions and also considering the impact that the revisionist-husband salary earned by him as he was working as a contractual Medical Officer at the relevant time and is having an income of Rs. 50,000/- per month, the learned Family Court made an interim arrangement to be paid by the revisionist-husband by way of maintenance to the respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-per month.

The said amount, as determined to be paid by the revisionist-husband to the respondent-wife, as per the impugned order dated 6th November 2017, it was to be made payable from the date of the order itself. Since this order was not complied with by the revisionist-husband, the respondent No. 2 had to file an application paper number 19(ga) before the learned Family Court, for seeking an appropriate direction to the employer of the revisionist that the said amount of an interim maintenance, as determined by the learned Family Court by an order dated 6th November 2017, that may be directed to be deducted at source i.e. by making deductions from the salary of the revisionist-husband and to be remitted to the accounts of respondent No. 2 (wife).

The said application, as preferred by respondent No. 2 (wife) as paper number 19 (ga) was allowed by the impugned order dated 09.07.2018, and a direction was issued to the Chief Medical Officer, Rudraprayag to make the necessary deductions from the salary of the revisionist-husband at source and was directed to be remitted the said amount in the bank account of respondent No. 2 (wife) in pursuance to which the employer is consistently making the deductions and remitting the amount into the account of respondent No. 2 (wife).

Be that as it may. Since by the impugned orders under challenge, the learned Family Court has only tried to consider with the particular situation or contingencies which was being faced by the respondent No. 2 (wife) on account of the financial crisis, which has arisen due to the matrimonial discord of her with the revisionist. The learned Family Court had also, after considering the income accruing to the revisionist-husband has only tentatively issued a direction by an order dated 6th November 2017, for remitting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 (wife).

Since this Court, being conscious of the fact that this is only an interim arrangement made by the learned Family Court, which was to be continued to be made by the revisionist-husband to the respondent-wife only during the pendency of the principle Application under Section 125 CrPC itself, which is yet to be decided on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, so as to enable them to have their rival stand in defence before the Family Court, hence this Court is not inclined to interfere as far as the propriety of the impugned orders are concerned, determining the interim arrangement which has been made payable to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month and the mode of its recovery as directed by the order dated 9th July 2018.

In a matrimonial dispute, the efforts should be made that the litigation between the parties should be minimised and minimise in the sense that the number of proceedings as well as particularly the period, which is likely to be indulged in pursuing the remedies before the different Forums. Keeping in view that the orders since happen to be orders determining the interim maintenance, this revision is dismissed, with request to the learned Family Court, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar to decide the main application under Section 125 of Cr.PC, as filed by respondent No. 2 (wife) on its own merit as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that the arrangement, which has been made by the learned Family court for the payment of an interim maintenance by the impugned order, is directed to be continued for the aforesaid period of three months or till 125 CrPC itself is decided as directed above.

Subject to the above observations, the criminal revision lacks merits, hence the same stands dismissed.