Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Shalini Gupta

Uttarakhand HC27 Mar 2014CRLR/121/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Uttarakhand modified a Family Court order granting Rs. 10,000/- monthly maintenance. The Court held that since the respondent Mrs. Shalini Gupta had only prayed for Rs. 5,000/- in her revised application and children were adults, maintenance should be limited to the prayed amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.05.2008 modified; revisionist directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance allowance instead of Rs. 10,000/-.

Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Shalini Gupta — Maintenance and Alimony | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 121 of 2008

¶3

Sunil Kumar Gupta ........….…… Revisionist

¶4

versus

¶5

Smt. Shalini Gupta ....………. Respondent

¶6

Mr. K.R.Gazi, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Meenu Sharma, present for the revisionist. None for the respondent.

¶7

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶8

The following is the chronology of events supplied by the learned counsel for the revisionist for the assistance of the Court:

¶9

Marriage of the revisionist and the respondent was solemnized on 18.11.1986.

¶10

In 1997, the parties started living separately. Wife admitted that parties are living separately since 1997.

¶11

Suit No. 241 of 1995- was filed by Sunil Gupta (husband), which was later on, got dismissed.

¶12

19.01.2000- Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party, case no. 389 of 1999, was allowed granting

¶13

¶14

maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to her and Rs. 350 each for the two children.

¶15

Petition No. 587of 2002- Smt. Shalini vs. Sunil Gupta filed by opposite party seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Husband Sunil Gupta filed a counter claim for divorce in the same suit.

¶16

22.05.2002 – Misc. Application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party for enhancement of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8000/- for herself, Rs. 4000/- for each of the children. The case was numbered as Misc. Case No. 483 of 2002.

¶17

06.09.2002- Proceedings of this case were stayed by Hon’ble High Court in criminal revision no. 276 of 2002.

¶18

Interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also granted to the wife in petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, being Petition No. 587 of 2002.

¶19

9. 15.09.2005- Misc. Application No. 284 of 2006 was filed by the opposite party under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by reassessing her need for maintenance. This case was registered as Misc. Case No. 284 of 2006. She revised her demand to Rs. 5000/for each of them, i.e., Rs. 5000/- for herself and Rs. 5000/for each of the two children.

¶20

During pendency, she was getting interim maintenance and was also getting maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Besides the applicant was taking care of children by bearing their expenses in terms of education and otherwise, over and above the maintenance amount statement of opposite party during pendency of the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

¶22

16.04.2007- Petition filed by opposite party under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. Applicants counter claim for decree of divorce was decreed.

¶23

11.10.2007- In First Appeal filed by opposite party, interim order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/- was granted by the family court.

¶24

23.05.2008- Both Misc. Applications filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. were disposed of by the Family Court. Instead of considering the subsequent applications under Section 127 Cr.P.C. which was filed under changed circumstances seeking Rs. 5000/- for herself and similar amount for the children, the family Curt, having found that the children have become major meanwhile, allowed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C granting maintenance to opposite party only at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- which was not on her demand. She could not have been granted more than her demand i.e. Rs. 5000/- for herself.

¶25

Present Criminal Revision was filed wherein interim order was granted for part of the amount.

¶26

The FA no. 19 of 2007 filed by opposite party was disposed of by this Court confirming decree of divorce subject to payment of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-

¶27

Applicant filed S.L.P. wherein interim order has been granted by the Apex Curt to the effect that decree regarding payment of Rs. 15 lakhs will be stayed subject to payment of maintenance allowance by the High Court.

¶28

None has responded for the respondent today also even in the revised call. This court has, therefore, no option but to decide the present criminal revision on merits.

¶29

¶30

The gravamen of the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Court below ought not to have granted the maintenance allowance, beyond what was prayed for by the respondent. There is substance in the said submission of learned counsel for the revisionist. There is no dispute that the children have become major and, therefore, they are not entitled to the maintenance allowance. In her revised application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent-lady sought Rs. 5000/- for herself and a similar amount for her children. Learned Judge, Family Court, having found that the children have become major, allowed the application of the respondent and directed the revisionist to pay her (respondent-wife) a maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. That was not her demand. She demanded only Rs. 5000/- for herself.

¶31

In the given situation, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist ought to have been directed to pay Rs. 5000/- monthly allowance to the respondent-lady, instead of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The simple logic behind such inference is that the respondent lady prayed for Rs. 5000/- in her revised application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. after reassessing her needs, and, therefore, ought not to have been given beyond that in normal circumstances. It has been clarified above that the children have already attained the age of majority. Impugned order dated 23.05.2008 is, therefore, liable to be interfered with to the extent, as above.

¶32

¶33

Criminal Revision is allowed in part. Impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2008 is modified to the extent that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 5000/-, instead of Rs. 10,000/- per month, as maintenance allowance to the respondent-wife. The other conditions in the impugned order shall remain the same.

¶34

(U.C.Dhyani,J.) 27.03.2014

¶35

Kaushal

¶36

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Shalini Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Shalini Gupta

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

Bacchan Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Mukesh Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Mayank Verma @ Maneshwar Nath Verma Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Ramesh Chandra Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Satish Sharma and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Bharat Bhushan Chugh and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another