Dismissed

Vikrant Verma v. Shalu Verma and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jul 2024CR.R/253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 15,000/month. It held that interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires only pleadings, not documentary evidence, to prevent starvation. The main petition is to be decided expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim maintenance order upheld; main petition to be decided within two months.

Vikrant Verma Vs Shalu Verma and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.253 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 05.07.2024

¶4

________________________________________ Major Vikrant Verma	_______________ …….Petitioner
Versus Shallu Verma and another	… Respondent
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹.	_______________

¶5

For the Petitioner: Ms. Suhani Gautam, Advocate.

¶6

For the Respondents : Nemo.

¶7

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 11.03.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby learned Court below, while considering the prayer made on behalf of the respondents for grant of ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 (D) Cr.P.C, proceeded to award sum of Rs.15,000/- per month each as interim maintenance to the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶10

perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

in the impugned order, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for.

¶14

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 that stage, Court is only required to see pleadings of the parties 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.

¶15

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, 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.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the petitioner undertakes to cause presence of his client before the Court below on 23.07.2024 ,

¶17

¶18

enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated time. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶20

05^th July, 2024 (shankar)

Vikrant Verma v. Shalu Verma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Verma v. Shalu Verma and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Kubja Devi

Ajay Verma Vs State of Hp and Another

Nitish Kumar Vs Neha Kumari