Revision against Family Court order fixing maintenance at Rs. 3,500/month. Bench held petitioner counsel absent to assist on enhancement; husband's income undisputed at Rs. 30,000; original order deemed just and proper, dismissing revision.
Revision dismissed; maintenance order of the Family Court affirmed; no enhancement granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLR No. 131 of 2019
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
List revised. None appears to press the Revision.
Mr. P.S. Bohra, A.G.A. with Mrs. Farida Siddiqui, Brief Holder for the State are present for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent No. 1.
This revision has been preferred by the revisionist/wife as against the order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Family Court Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 5 of 2018, Babita and others Vs. Sunil Nautiyal.
The Family Court, after considering the income which has been accruing to the husband to the tune of Rs.30,000/- from his Pandit husband had determined the compensation to be paid for maintenance to revisionist No. 1 @ Rs.1,500/- and revisionist Nos. 2 and 3 @ Rs. 1,000/- each, i.e. total of Rs. 3,500/- has been directed to be paid by the respondent as maintenance to the revisionists.
It is the case of the respondent is that the said amount as directed to be paid by the judgment dated 15th January, 2019, has been consistently remitted by the respondent to the revisionists. However, the revisionists has filed the present revision questioning the order dated 15th January, 2019, on the ground that the amount awarded by the Family Court is too meager considering the family condition and expenses of the revisionists and hence, she has claimed for enhancement of the maintenance to the tune of Rs.14,000/p.m. However, what is important to note here is that the amount of income which has been accruing to the husband and which has been recorded by the Court in the impugned
judgment, has not been denied or disputed in any proceedings by the revisionist.
Considering the quantum of income which was accruing to the respondent / husband, who was working as Pandit, has shown his income of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/only and also considering the fact that the revisionists’ counsel is not present to assist the Court on the issue of enhancement of the amount, this Court is of the view that the finding which has been recorded by the Court below, the amount of compensation to be paid by way of maintenance to the revisionists, as determined by the Family Court, is just and proper which does not call for interference in any manner.
Consequently, the Revision is dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 01.07.2019 Shiv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's determination of maintenance at Rs. 3,500/- per month is just and proper considering the husband's income.
Whether the maintenance awarded needs to be enhanced due to inflation or family expenses.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Babita
State of Uttarakhand
Shamsher Singh Darlao
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
