Surjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Criminal Case No.156 of 2024 Smt. Gurpreet Kaur and another Vs. Surjeet Singh, whereby, the application filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 for interim maintenance was allowed partly and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4,500/-per month (1,500/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 to 4) till the disposal of the case from the date of filing the application i.e. 10.05.2024.

The facts of the case in nutshell are that the revisionist and the respondent No.2 were got married on 12.12.2001 as per Hindu (Sikh) Rites and Rituals and out of the said wedlock, respondent Nos.3 and 4-Km. Ajeet Kaur and Km. Saranjeet Kaur, and one son-Manvinder Singh was born. Due to some marital discord between them, after 22 years of marriage, respondent No.2 preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 10.05.2024, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.156 of 2024 Smt. Gurpreet Kaur and another Vs. Surjeet Singh, before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. During the pendency of the said application, respondent No.2 filed an application for interim maintenance reiterating the contents of application filed under Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowed the said application and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4,500/-per month (1,500/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 to 4) till the disposal of the case from the date of filing the application i.e. 10.05.2024.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the respondent No.2 is living separately without any cogent reason and the daughters of the revisionist (respondent Nos.3 and 4) are working in the River Creek Resort situated at Marchula, Ramnagar and they are aged about 23 years and 20 years respectively, therefore, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not entitled for any maintenance. He further submits that the revisionist has already filed the application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 06.11.2024.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the annual income of the revisionist is only a tune of Rs.48,000/- per year i.e. a tune of Rs.4,000/- per month, as per income certificate issued by Tehsildar, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is annexed as Annexure No.9. The revisionist has the responsibility of his old parents and his minor son and further the respondent No.2 has utterly failed to prove the income of the revisionist and therefore, the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, is on a higher side and liable to be set aside. He also contends that the impugned order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set-aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the instant revision is not maintainable, as there are no ingredient to challenge the impugned order dated 20.01.2025, thus, there is no requirement of interference under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. The learned Family Judge has granted only interim maintenance till disposal of the main petition.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents available on record as well as the judgment and order impugned in the present criminal revision. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding the failure to consider the financial status of the revisionist, is totally bereft of merit. The amount is quite considerate and therefore, it needs no interference. The reasoning given by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar while allowing the application of the revisionist partly vide its order dated 20.01.2025, is quite convincing and needs no interference.

In view of the above, the present criminal revision is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.