Dismissed

Mohd Umar v. Shabnam

Uttarakhand HC8 Jul 2019CRLR/367/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging an interim maintenance award of Rs. 3600/- because interference was not warranted. However, the Court directed the Family Court to decide the merits of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application within two months, citing the insufficiency of the sum for supporting two minor daughters.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; Family Court directed to decide the Section 125 application on merits within two months.

Mohd Umar Vs Shabnam — Maintenance and Alimony | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

CRLR No. 367 of 2019

¶2

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶3

Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the revisionist.

¶4

Mr. P.S. Bohra, AGA along with Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

This is a criminal revision, which has been preferred by the revisionist being aggrieved against the orders dated 15.04.2019, as well as, dated 19.09.2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Nainital in Miscellaneous Case No. 252 of 2017, Smt. Shabnam v. Mohd. Umer, while exercising its power under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 3600/- per month to the respondent No. 1.

¶6

The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as far as the revisionist is concerned, since he is working as labourer, he hasn’t got sufficient source of earning by virtue of which he could part a sum of Rs. 3600/- per month, as awarded as an interim maintenance by the learned Family Court, Nainital. But the fact remains the Court has to consider the fact that respondent No. 1 has to take care of the two minor daughters, who, at present are of 11 and 9 years of age respectively.

¶7

Considering the fact that there had been an earlier dispute also between the parties to the revision, which was later on settled by way of a Punchayat and thereafter second marriage was solemnized with the respondent No. 1 and various other allegations have been levelled in the application, preferred under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the objection filed by the revisionist as against one another.

¶8

But at this stage, this Court is not concerned with the vitalities of the controversy between the revisionist and the respondents pending in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but considering the fact that the order which is under challenge is nothing but an interim arrangement which has been made during the pendency of the adjudication of an Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on merits, which is yet to be decided on merits, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter so far as the interim directions issued by the learned Family Court to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3600/- per month to respondent No. 1. This Court is of the view that considering the present scenario and the price rise of the commodities, it is practically not possible to maintain the two daughters with such paultry sum of money which has been awarded as maintenance.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid fact and while rejecting the revision, the learned Family Court, Nainital is requested to decide the Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself on its own merits within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶10

Subject to the above observations, the revision would stand dismissed.

¶11

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 08.07.2019

¶12

Mahinder/

Mohd Umar v. Shabnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Umar v. Shabnam

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

Wazid Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Smt. Suman Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Anees Ahmad Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Smt Saraswati Devi and Others Vs Santosh Singh and Others

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Jagdish and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand