Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13416 (UTT)

KUSUM RAWAT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

CRLR/905/2024 · 2025-03-11

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 11.03.2025 CRLR No.905 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned DAG for the State. 3. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1 of 2024) 4. There is a delay of 47 days in filing the revision. 5. In view of the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. 6. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Misc. Case No.79 of 2023, “Kusum Rawat and another vs. Baldev Singh Rawat”, wherein an amount of Rs.16,000/- to the revisionist and Rs.8,000/- to her daughter per month as interim maintenance has been awarded from the date of filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the impugned order is not in consonance with the ratio/guidelines propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, which has been circulated amongst all the concerned courts to have an uniformity while deciding the plea for maintenance. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that the Family Court while passing the impugned order failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in their totality and the revisionist has no source of income except the maintenance. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that notices were not duly served and whole of the proceedings has preceded ex-parte, therefore, no question to increase the quantum of maintenance. 10. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. However, the present revision is disposed of with liberty to the revisionist to move an application before the appropriate forum, as per law. 11. Pending application, if any, stands also disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.03.2025 BS