Sushil Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the impugned order dated 18.01.2021, passed in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2017, Master Ayush (Minor) Vs. Sushil Kumar, by the court of Family Judge, Haridwar (“the case”). By this order, the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) filed by the private respondent has been rejected, but the court directed the revisionist to pay the arrears of maintenance in three instalments.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the private respondent had already attained 18 years of age on 24.04.2018. Beyond that he cannot get maintenance. It is submitted that the recovery proceedings beyond that period has already been filed before the court below. The revisionist has questioned the order dated 18.01.2021, passed in the case. In that order, the court has already held that the date of birth of the private respondent is 24.04.2000. Therefore, on 24.04.2018, he had already completed 18 years of age and he is not entitled to maintenance beyond that period. Accordingly, the application under Section 127 of the Code filed by the private respondent has been rejected, but the court ordered for arrears. These arrears are not for any period beyond 24.04.2018.

A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the private respondent, according to this order, is entitled to receive maintenance till 24.04.2018. If any recovery proceeding has already been initiated by the private respondent, this fact could be brought to the notice of the court by the revisionist. The court below would definitely take a decision, in accordance with law.

With these observations, the revision stands disposed of.