Sangita & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2013 and Criminal Revision No. 127 of 2013, both arise out of judgment and order dated 05.03.2013, passed in case

no. 130 of 2010 by the court of learned Family Judge, Haridwar (for short, ‘the case’). By the impugned judgment and order, the respondent

Inder Pal Singh has been directed to pay Rs. 6500/- per month as maintenance allowance to the revisionist Smt. Sangita. In this judgment Smt. Sangita

shall be referred as ‘the revisionist’ and Inder Pal Singh shall be referred to as ‘the respondent’.

Revisionist Smt. Sangita has not been represented today.

Heard learned counsel for the respondent Inder Pal Singh and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the respondent Inder Pal Singh would submit that the respondent is already paying Rs. 3500/- per month as maintenance to the

revisionist Smt. Sangita under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This aspect has not been considered by the

learned court below while awarding maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondent Inder Pal Singh also

looks after his parents.

Revisionist Smt. Sangita has also filed revision on the ground that the amount of maintenance is not adequate and it may be enhanced.

The only question which falls for consideration is that whether the amount of maintenance, as awarded is adequate or it requires any modification.

In her application under Section 125 of the Code, the revisionist Smt. Sangita has stated that the respondent works with Uttarakhand Power

Corporation Ltd.; he is also an agent in ICICI Life Insurance and earns Rs. 65,000/- per month. These facts have been denied in the objection filed by

the respondent though he has admitted that he works in Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. as an Assistant Accountant and gets Rs. 9320 basic

salary. Document to that effect has been filed.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that while awarding maintenance, the court considered that total Rs. 6500/- as maintenance is to be provided

to Smt. Sangita. It is not in addition of any other maintenance which the revisionist Sangita is otherwise entitled to. It is not in addition to the amount

which is being paid to the revisionist by the respondent Inder Pal Singh. In its order the court has recorded that if any other amount of maintenance is

being paid to the revisionist, it would be adjusted to the amount of maintenance awarded. In para 13 of the judgment, the court in much detail has

discussed the source of income and total income of the respondent Inder Pal Singh and has arrived at a conclusion that on the basis of pay slip the

total salary of the revisionist Rs. 26290/-. After considering all the relevant factors the respondent has been directed to pay Rs. 6500/- per month as

maintenance.

Having considered all the aspects, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance which is awarded to the revisionist Smt. Sangita is

adequate. This order does not warrant interference, therefore, both the revisions deserve to be dismissed.

Both the revisions are dismissed accordingly.