Dismissed¶16

Sanjay Kumar v. Kubja Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jul 2024CR.R/152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: ad-interim maintenance; interim maintenance; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Section 19(4) Family Courts Act; pleadings versus documentary evidence at interim stage; maintenance seeker not left to starve; adjustment of interim maintenance against final award; revision against interim maintenance order; Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Ghumarwin Bilaspur; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Sandeep Sharma, Judge; Criminal Revision No.152 of 2024; decision 05.07.2024; Sanjay Kumar v. Kubja Devi.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioner; impugned interim-maintenance order upheld. Court below directed to decide the main Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition expeditiously, preferably within two months, with ad-interim maintenance received by the respondent to be adjusted against any amount finally awarded; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Kubja Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 awarding the respondent ad-interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. suffers from illegality warranting interference, given the petitioner's grouse that the Court below failed to consider pleadings/material showing his monthly income of Rs. 40,000/- and six other family members to maintain. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

This Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order granting ad-interim maintenance and, as such, no interference is called for.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

While considering a prayer for ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to see documentary evidence adduced on record; at that stage it is only required to see the pleadings of the party seeking such maintenance.

¶15

Key takeaways

The very purpose and object of granting interim maintenance during the pendency of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that a person seeking such maintenance is not left to starve.ratio¶15
The present petition finds no merit and is accordingly dismissed; as a result, the order impugned in these proceedings is upheld.ratio¶16
The learned Court below is directed to decide the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, preferably within two months, and the maintenance received by the respondent as ad-interim maintenance shall be adjusted in the amount, if any, awarded in the main petition; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act — interim maintenance. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, Judge, oral) dismisses the petitioner-husband's revision challenging an order dated 10.01.2024 of the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, which awarded the respondent-wife Rs.7,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court holds that while considering a prayer for ad-interim maintenance the Court is not required to see documentary evidence on record and need only consider the pleadings of the party seeking maintenance, the very purpose of interim maintenance during pendency of the main Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition being to ensure the seeker is not left to starve. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the Court upholds it, directs the Court below to decide the main petition expeditiously (preferably within two months), orders that interim maintenance received be adjusted against any final award, and disposes of pending applications.

¶1

2024:HHC:4632

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Criminal Revision No.152 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.07.2024

¶4

_______________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Kubja Devi … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ .

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

For the Respondent : None.

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶10

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned Court below, while considering the prayer made on behalf of the respondent for grant of ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, proceeded to award sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order.

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

¶13

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that learned Court below, while ordering ad-interim maintenance, failed to take note of the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record suggestive of the fact that monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 40,000/- per month and he has other six family members to maintain.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for.

¶15

Needless to say, while considering prayer, if any, for ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Court is not required to see documentary evidence, if any, adduced on record, rather at this stage, Court is only required to see pleadings of the party seeking such maintenance. Very purpose and object of granting interim maintenance during the pendency of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is to ensure that a person seeking such maintenance is not left to starve.

¶16

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed, as a result thereof, order impugned in the instant proceedings is upheld,

¶17

¶18

with a direction to learned Court below to decide the main petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Needless to say, maintenance received by the respondent as ad-interim maintenance shall be adjusted in the amount, if any, awarded in the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Learned counsel representing the petitioner undertake to cause presence of his client before the learned Court below on 22.07.2024 , enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated time. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶20

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶21

July 05, 2024 ( sunil )

Sanjay Kumar v. Kubja Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. Kubja Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valister Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jagbir Vs Sandeep Mehta

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ajay Verma Vs State of Hp and Another

Nitish Kumar Vs Neha Kumari

Himachali Parmar Vs M/s Puri Ornaments and Anr.