Ravindra Maithani, J
1. The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 20.07.2024, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.120 of 2023, Anil Devi vs. Om Prakash, by
the court of Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the caseâ€), by which, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per
month as interim maintenance to the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
3. On 08.10.2024, when this matter was taken up, on behalf of the revisionist a statement is given that there are ample chances of settlement of the
dispute. The Court on that date required the revisionist to deposit Rs.10,000/- in the Registry and subject to it, directed that the notices be sent to the
respondent. The revisionist has not deposited Rs.10,000/-, as per the office report.
4. Today, learned counsel for the revisionist gives a statement that the revisionist is not in a position to pay such amount. Even, the revisionist is not
present today.
5. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the respondent seeking maintenance from
the revisionist. According to which, parties were married on 09.02.2002, but after marriage there were discords in their relationship. Parties stayed
together at Rishikesh, but thereafter, when the revisionist was transferred to Kotdwar, he did not take the respondent with him. It is the case of the
respondent that the revisionist was reluctant to keep within him. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist is in a Government job and
gets Rs.60,000/- per month salary. In the case, an application for interim maintenance has also been filed, which has been objected to by the
respondent.
6. It has been the case of the revisionist that the respondent did not behave properly in her in-laws’ house. She would threaten the revisionist that
she would implicate him in dowry case, etc. The respondent has been staying separate without any reasonable cause. After hearing the parties, by the
impugned order, the court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent, which is impugned
herein.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is paying Rs.12,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent, but
he is not able to pay arrears.
8. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and orders.
9. The impugned order categorically records that admittedly, the revisionist gets Rs.63,966/- per month salary. After deduction, he gets Rs.33,366/-.
Rs.12,000/-has been awarded as interim maintenance, which this Court is of the view does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the criminal
revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
10. The criminal revision is dismissed in limine.
