KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 5/5/2025, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.240 of 2025, Monika Sharma and others Vs. Kamal Kishore Sharma, under Sec. 144 of B.N.S.S. to grant/revise the amount of interim maintenance payable by the revisionist to respondent nos.2 and 3.

(2.) Facts in a nutshell are that revisionist and husband were married and out of their wedlock two children were born. After lapse of some time, due to acrimony between them, her wife moved out of her matrimonial home and moved an application under Sec. 144 of B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance amounting to ?25,000/- per month, and ?5,00,000/-, apart from monthly maintenance. Thereafter an application for interim maintenance was also filed in the court of learned Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.240 of 2023 on which learned Judge, vide its judgment and order dtd. 5/5/2023, made a direction to pay an amount of ?5,000/- each, for the maintenance of his two children ' one of them being a girl. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order passed by learned Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.240 of 2023 is passed without taking into consideration the ratio of income of the revisionist/father and paid excessive amount as maintenance to his children, which is illegal and improper as the revisionist/father has not much source of income at present and is having responsibility of his father also. Wife of the revisionist filed an application under Sec. 144 of B.N.S.S. 2023 but she was unable to prove that the revisionist is earning ?50,000/-, per month, but in fact he is a school Teacher, earning not more than ?28,000/-, per month, and on looking that fact it is impossible for him to pay such a hefty amount as maintenance to respondent nos.2 and 3.