Isha Parveeen And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

These are two Criminal Revisions. Criminal Revision No. 677 of 2019, Smt. Isha Parveen and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, is a fresh Revision, preferred by the Wife and the children of the respondent No.2 on 20.11.2019, challenging the order dated 19th October, 2019, as passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Roorkee, District Haridwar, by virtue of which, the present revisionists of Revision No. 677 of 2019, has prayed for the enhancement of the interim maintenance as it has been determined by the Family Court payable to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- in total with regard to all the revisionists of the present Revision.

Whereas on the other hand, the respondent No. 2, herein, i.e. Taiyab Ansari, has filed a Criminal Revision No. 661 of 2019, Taiyab Ansari Vs. Isha Parvin and others, wherein, he has question the determination of maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- as granted by the Court of Additional Judge, Family Court, which is also impugned in the present Revision.

More particularly, the argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the parties and the logical inference, which could be drawn is that the fact of marriage being held between Isha Parveen and Taiyab Ahmad in accordance with muslim rites and rituals on 3rd May, 2004, is an admitted fact; the birth of the two children out of the matrimony is yet again is an admitted fact between the parties and, as such, socially it requires that the wife and children, they are to be maintained by the natural guardian and the father, but, the issue, which has been sought to be agitated by both the parties in these two Revisions, is with regard to as to what would be the appropriate maintenance to be determined in relation to the income accuring to Taiyab. This Court is of the view that at this stage before venturing to adjudicate upon the quantum to be determined by way of interim maintenance, it would not be safe because it may have an adverse affect on the final adjudication of 125 Application itself, which is yet to be decided by the Family Court on merits.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the revisionist of Revision No. 661 of 2019, Taiyab Ansari Vs. Isha Parveen and others, had submitted that the determination of maintenance made payable from the date of the application would be too excessive for the reason being that the proceedings is alleged to have been delayed before the Court below for one reason or another, which could also be attributed to the party adverse to the proceedings. While, on the other hand, the counsel for the Revisionist of Revision 677 of 2019, i.e. wife submits that though the amount has been determined to be made payable @ Rs. 35,000/- p.m. but no amount, in fact, has been remitted by the husband of Revision No. 661 of 2019.

This Court, at this stage, is refraining itself to address on merits of the matter because it may prejudice the ultimate adjudication of the proceedings before the Court below. But as far as the plea taken by the counsel for revisionist husband about the liability fixed from the date of the application itself, the liability arising out of the same particular with regard to arrears, the same is directed to be determined by the Additional Judge, Family Court at the time of final adjudication of the case itself under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is being directed as per the direction to be given hereunder, to be decided in specific time frame :-

i. In case, if the revisionist wife is aggrieved due to non payment of the monthly interim maintenance as determined by the Family Court, she may have her remedy available to her under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by filing an appropriate application before the Court below for executing the order to that extent, if amount has not been paid. Leaving these two issues open to be determined at the stage of final adjudication by the Additional Judge, Family Court when 125 Cr.P.C. application itself is determined on its own merit. Hence, the Revisions are disposed of in the following manner :-

i. The interim maintenance as determined by the Family Court by virtue of the impugned order dated 19th October, 2019, to be paid monthly would be continued to be remitted by the revisionist husband by 10th of each month by remitting the same to the revisionist wife of Revision No. 677 of 2019.

ii. The revisionist husband would ensure its payment by 10th of each month.

iii. Any determination made by this order will not preclude the Court from determining the final liability, which is to be adjudicated on its own merits, whether it is to be made liable to be paid from the date of the application or from the date of the order, which is a subject matter left open to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself.

iv. It is yet again left open for the revisionist wife that if she has got even a slightest grievance due to non compliance of the direction issued for remittance of the monthly interim maintenance by the order dated 19th October, 2019, she is not left remediless, she can file an appropriate application under Section 125 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the order, which is to be adjudicated independently.

v. The learned Family Court is requested to decide the 125 Cr.P.C. Application itself on its own merit, including the two issues as already observed above within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Subject to the above observations and exceptions, both the Revisions stand dismissed.