MASTER SHRESHTHA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this criminal revision seems to be confined from a very limited prospective, where the revisionist had sought a partial challenge to the impugned order of 12/4/2019, which has been passed by the Judge, Family Court Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Case No.33 of 2014, Master Shrestha vs. Vivek Swaroop, whereby while considering the propriety of an application which was preferred under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance which was claimed by the revisionist to be paid at the rate of Rs.30,000.00per month, has been determined to be made payable at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month by the impugned order, which is under challenge making a prayer that the same may be made from the date of application rather from the date of the order. There had been many other collateral proceedings under different subjects, which were drawn by the parties to the revision, but that may not be relevant to be ventured into by this Court at this stage, while deciding this criminal revision, as the issue of maintenance to a child under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., has got a different complexity and complexion itself which has to be independently considered, and particularly under the facts of the present case where the controversy of the revisionist being a biological son of the respondent no.2, was a fact which had been established by the judicial order passed by this Court. Hence, there is no more controversy, that the revisionist is the biological son of the respondent no.2 herein.

(2.) The revisionist had preferred this revision, while giving a partial challenge to the impugned order under challenge i.e. dtd. 12/4/2019, praying for an enhancement in the grant of maintenance, as it has been determined by the Judge, Family Court, considering the overall circumstances, including the aspects pertaining to the respective assets, the respective liabilities, which either of the parties i.e. the parents of the revisionist have to cater to and the income which is accruing to the parents of the revisionist. In this long drawn proceedings of the criminal revision, there had been pleading and counter pleadings placed on record by the parties and few facts, which now stands unrebutted and established, on the basis of the pleadings itself are:-

(3.) On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent no.2, had submitted that no additional financial burden may be harnessed upon respondent no.2-husband by enhancing the maintenance amount; for the reason being that he has to maintain his aged parents, coupled with the fact, that another ground of defence, which the respondent no.2 has taken is that the guardian of the revisionist i.e. his mother Jyoti, is financially viable and having her own residential accommodation said to have been purchased from her own coffers, including a four wheel automobile, which was said to have been purchased by her by making a down payment which itself is a fact, which establishes her financial liabilities to maintain the revisionist, for which she too is equally responsible.