Pradeep Singh Bisht vs Neeta Bisht And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

This criminal revision filed under Section 438/442 of B.N.S.S 2023 is directed against the order dated 07.05.2025, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani in Misc. Criminal Case No.6 of 2024, Smt. Neeta Bisht Vs. Pradeep Singh Bisht, whereby interim maintenance has been awarded to respondents.

Facts in a nutshell are that an application seeking interim maintenance (Paper No.5 A) was moved on behalf of the applicant/respondent no.1. In that application, it was stated that respondent no.1 was severely – physically and mentally – harassed; she was staying in a rented room at Delhi and in Haldwani also and has to incur plenty of money in maintenance of her children’s treatment, care and her own treatment. She also has to spend sufficient money in litigation expenses. Due to cruel behavior and conduct by the revisionist with respondent no.1, she was not in such a condition to maintain herself and her son. The revisionist is an employee of Public Works Department from where he gets ₹2,00,000/- salary and allowance and accordingly an application for grant of interim maintenance @ ₹35,000/-per month was made.

On the said application revisionist filed his objection (Paper No.19 B), wherein it was stated that the applicant is earning ₹35,000/-, per month, as salary and she was employed even before the marriage. She was also having gold bond, shares and LIC policy also. After June, 2022 she is doing work from home. It was also stated that though the applicant was employed and self dependent, the revisionist keep on fulfilling her legal and illegal demands, but the applicant/respondent no.1 did not pay any attention towards her matrimonial life and started living separately from the revisionist w.e.f., 06.03.2023, in a nutshell he requested for rejection of application seeking interim maintenance.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself for the simple reason that respondent no.1 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and it is his duty to maintain his wife and children. The Court also recorded finding of fact that the revisionist earns a net salary of ₹67,517/-, per month, and in such a condition the court below awarded ₹5,000/- to respondent no.1-wife and ₹3,000/- to respondent no.2-son, in total ₹8,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case as well as taking into account the present rate of inflation the amount awarded to the respondents does not appear to be excessive or exorbitant, in any way. Even the court below has awarded money on the interim maintenance application only which is subject to final adjudication of the main petition. Thus no ground for interference is warranted and the criminal revision is dismissed and trial court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously.