IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2025 Joga Singh Bisht ....Revisionist Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents Present:- Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the revisionist. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 08.08.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.340 of 2023, Smt. Geeta Devi and Another Vs. Joga Singh, by the court of Family Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 7,500/-, as interim maintenance, to the respondent no.2, SMt. Geeta Bisht, his wife and Rs. 6,500/-, as interim maintenance to the respondent no.3, Shaurabh Bisht, his son, till he attains majority. 2. The revision is delayed. A Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1 of 2025) has been filed. 3. Heard on Delay Condonation Application. 4. Having considered, this Court is of the view that delay in filing the revision may be condoned. 5. The delay condonation application is allowed. 2 6. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 7. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 8. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) by the respondent no.2, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son, the respondent no.3. According to the respondent no.2, she and the revisionist were married on 11.12.1998. They were blessed with a son. The revisionist was Army personnel. After retirement, he started harassing the respondent no.2. He also threatened her to divorce and stopped paying maintenance to her. 9. The revisionist did file his objections. According to him, the respondent no.2 had been pressurizing the revisionist to seek re-employment and had committed cruelty with him and had expelled him out of his house in the month of December, 2022. In the case, an application for interim maintenance has also been filed. 10. After hearing the parties, the court observed that the revisionist is retired Army personnel, who gets Rs. 30,738/- as pension. There are allegations that he also earns Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture. The court below also observed that the 3 respondent no.2 is not able to maintain herself, and having considered, passed the impugned order. 11. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the respondent no.3, his son, has already attained majority in the month of January, 2024. Beyond that he is not entitled to get maintenance. It is also argued that the respondent no.2 did not mention the date of birth of her son, the respondent no.3, in the application under Section 125 of the Code; in fact, it is the respondent no.2, who had committed cruelty to the revisionist and has expelled him out of his house, and the revisionist is staying separate and is maintaining his 85 years old aged-ailing mother. 12. Admittedly, the revisionist is the husband of the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.3 is their son. The impugned order categorically records that the respondent no.3 shall get interim maintenance till he attain majority. Therefore, that issue does not require any further deliberation. 13. Insofar as the cause for staying separate is concerned, there are divergent versions of the parties. On the one hand, according to the revisionist, he has been expelled from his house by the respondent no.2, and he is staying separate. On the other hand, according to the respondent no.2, she is being harassed and 4 tortured by the revisionist and the revisionist also threatens to divorce her. 14. What would be the reason for staying separate, perhaps, the court may record a conclusive finding once the parties are permitted to lead evidence. 15. The revisionist has not shown as to what is the income of the respondent no.2. It has not been established that the respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself. As stated, the respondent no.2 has categorically stated that she is not able to maintain herself. The court has noted that the pension of the revisionist is Rs. 30,738/-, and having considered, the court has awarded total Rs. 14,000/- per month, as interim maintenance, to the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 16. Be it noted, the respondent no. 3 has been awarded interim maintenance till he attains majority, which, according to the learned counsel for the revisionist, he has already attained in the month of January, 2024. It further means that after attainment of majority of the respondent no.3, the respondent no.3, the revisionist is only liable to pay Rs.7,500/- per month, as interim maintenance to the respondent no.3. 17. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no error, illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. The impugned order 5 does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself. 18. The revision is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.02.2025 Ravi Bisht