Dismissed

Kapil Khetarpal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Jul 2019CRLR/297/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the High Court upheld the Family Court's interim maintenance order of Rs. 15,000 per month. The court found the amount reasonable considering dependency on two children and refrained from commenting on the revisionist's income status. The revision was dismissed with a direction to decide the main application on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; Family Court directed to decide Section 125 Cr.P.C. application on merits within three months.

Kapil Khetarpal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

CRLR No. 297 of 2019

¶2

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶3

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.

¶4

Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The precise case in the revision arises out of an order passed on an interim application paper No. 16B by the learned Family Court, Haridwar in Case No. 285 of 2018, Smt. Shalini and others v. Kapil Khetarpal, by virtue of which in the principle proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the interim application was considered and on considering the same, the learned Family Court has directed the payment of sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to be paid to respondent No. 2 by the present revisionist.

¶8

The amount thus calculated by the learned Family Court which was to be paid by the revisionist to respondent No. 2 was also inclusive of the maintenance, which was to be paid towards the two children, who are dependent upon respondent No. 2.

¶9

The precise fact of the case is that the revisionist got married with respondent No. 2 on 23.08.2008 at Chandigarh. As a consequence of the marriage, two children were born, who at the time of institution of the proceedings were 13 and 9 years of age respectively and are growing children of the revisionist.

¶10

According to the pleading, which has been raised by respondent No. 2, she has contended that in order to maintain herself, she requires an amount of at least Rs. 40,000/- per month, so as to make her life compatible to the status to which she was acquainted with to live at the time when the marriage subsisted between the revisionist and herself i.e. respondent No. 2.

¶11

On the other hand, the contention of the revisionist is that he is not earning anything and the income which has been shown by the respondent

¶12

No. 2 is not the correct figure, that he is dealing in the real estate and also involved in money lending business on interest and according to respondent No. 2, she has submitted that the income which is accruing to the revisionist is about Rs. 60,000/- per month.

¶13

At this stage, this Court is refraining itself from making any observation with regard to the merits of the matter pertaining to the income which is accruing to the revisionist; but, however, rationally, if it is taken into consideration the dependency of the two children, which is exclusively to be met with by respondent No. 2, the amount of maintenance, which has been granted by the learned Family Court i.e. of Rs. 15,000/- per month seems to be quite reasonable, because as soon as the children grow up, gradually, the expenditures towards their education, up-keeping, fooding and medical assistances etc. it keeps on mounting.

¶14

So, without disturbing the determination which has been made by the learned Family Court, Haridwar directing the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 15000/- per month to respondent No. 2, as an interim maintenance this revision is being dismissed with a request to learned Family Court, Haridwar to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., itself on its own merits within a period of three months from today without being affected by any observations which has been made in the interim order dated 04.05.2019 or in today’s order pertaining to the determination of maintenance at an interim stage.

¶15

The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be decided independently exclusively on its own merits.

¶16

Subject to above observations, the revision is dismissed.

¶17

10.07.2019

¶18

Mahinder/

Kapil Khetarpal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Khetarpal v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Sardar Gurucharan Singh Makkad and Another Vs Jasminder Singh Makkad and Another

Arun Kumar Dubey Vs Union Of Inida

Basant Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Smt Salma Yusuf and Another Vs Smt Usha Tankha

Dhum Singh Pundir Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Dilshad Vs State of Uttarakhand