Himanshu Malik vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

There is 539 days’ delay in filing the present criminal revision, which is not seriously opposed by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Consequently, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned.

Admit.

This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the ex-parte impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No. 189 of 2017, “Smt. Vandana Vs. Himanshu Malik” by which the learned court below has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the respondent no. 2, by directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the revisionist limits his prayer only to the extent that the matter may kindly be remanded back to the lower Court for its expeditious disposal and a direction may be given to the concerned Court to decide the matter in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 234. He further prayed that an opportunity to the revisionist may be granted to file the written statement before the Court below.

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 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 234, as expeditiously as possible.

(ii) An opportunity to the revisionist be given to file the written statement before the Court below.

(ii) Till the final disposal of the case by the Court below, the revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month regularly to respondent no. 2 before the 10th day of every month and without any break from the date from which the maintenance is awarded by the Court below. 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 from such date as the learned Court below deems it fit, in accordance with law.

Needless to say that if any application pertaining to the arrears of maintenance is filed before the Court below, the same shall be disposed of on merits, as per law.

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