ISHA PARVEEEN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two Criminal Revisions. Criminal Revision No. 677 of 2019, Smt. Isha Parveen and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, is a fresh Revision, preferred by the Wife and the children of the respondent No.2 on 20.11.2019, challenging the order dated 19th October, 2019, as passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Roorkee, District Haridwar, by virtue of which, the present revisionists of Revision No. 677 of 2019, has prayed for the enhancement of the interim maintenance as it has been determined by the Family Court payable to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- in total with regard to all the revisionists of the present Revision.

(2.) Whereas on the other hand, the respondent No. 2, herein, i.e. Taiyab Ansari, has filed a Criminal Revision No. 661 of 2019, Taiyab Ansari Vs. Isha Parvin and others, wherein, he has question the determination of maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- as granted by the Court of Additional Judge, Family Court, which is also impugned in the present Revision.

(3.) More particularly, the argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the parties and the logical inference, which could be drawn is that the fact of marriage being held between Isha Parveen and Taiyab Ahmad in accordance with muslim rites and rituals on 3rd May, 2004, is an admitted fact; the birth of the two children out of the matrimony is yet again is an admitted fact between the parties and, as such, socially it requires that the wife and children, they are to be maintained by the natural guardian and the father, but, the issue, which has been sought to be agitated by both the parties in these two Revisions, is with regard to as to what would be the appropriate maintenance to be determined in relation to the income accuring to Taiyab. This Court is of the view that at this stage before venturing to adjudicate upon the quantum to be determined by way of interim maintenance, it would not be safe because it may have an adverse affect on the final adjudication of 125 Application itself, which is yet to be decided by the Family Court on merits.