Dismissed

Prem Gaurav v. Sarita Rana

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Aug 2024CR.R/304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging an interim maintenance order. It held that interim grants under Cr.P.C. Section 125 require only a check of pleadings, not documentary evidence, to prevent starvation. The order was upheld, and the lower court was directed to decide the main petition expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned order upheld; main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. disposed within two months; interim maintenance adjusted against final award.

Prem Gaurav Vs Sarita Rana — Maintenance and Alimony | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Criminal Revision No.304 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 01.08.2024

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Prem Gaurav …….Petitioner Versus Smt. Sarita Rana … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹ .

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondent : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate.

¶8

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 03.07.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge (Family Court) Mandi District Mandi, 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 (1)Cr.P.C, proceeded to award sum of Rs.500o/- per month as interim maintenance, 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.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, 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 the respondent has sufficient means to sustain herself. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that Court below also failed to take note of the fact that the respondent is earning sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

¶13

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.

¶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

¶16

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no

¶17

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.

¶18

Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before the Court below on 14.08.2024 , enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated time. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶20

August 01, 2024 (manjit)

Prem Gaurav v. Sarita Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Gaurav v. Sarita Rana

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

Atul Vs State of Hp

Murari Lal Vs State of Hp and Another

Gulab Chauhan Vs Satish Mehta

Ranjeet Singh Mehta Vs Joginder Singh

Shisham Kumar Vs Bisheshar Lal

Manmohan Singh and Ors. Vs Kamla Devi and Ors.