PRAKASH CHANDRA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision is made to the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2022, passed in Case No. 346 of 2018, Smt. Tapas Sarita Raut Vs. Sh. Prakash Chandra Behera, by the court of Family Judge, Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.7,000.00 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent no.2.

(2.) Today, when none was present for the State, the Court requested Mr. G.S. Sandhu, the Government Advocate, as to whether, any Government Advocate has been appointed to assist the Court? According to him, he has allotted the cases to the Additional Government Advocates, but despite it, none is present on behalf of the State.

(3.) It appears that the respondent no.2, the wife of the revisionist, filed an application seeking maintenance from the revisionist under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the basis of the case. In that case, an application for interim maintenance was filed. According to the respondent no.2, she and the revisionist were married, but after marriage, the revisionist tortured and did marpeet with her, due to which respondent no.2 was compelled to stay separate. The revisionist works in an organisation and gets Rs.55,000.00 per month salary. He has agricultural land also, whereas, the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself.