ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is preferred along with Delay Condonation Application No. 1312 of 2019. There is a delay of 66 days, which has chanced in preferring the Revision.

(2.) Initially, the Court vide its order dtd. 27/5/2019, had issued notices to the respondent No. 2. It is reported by the Registry that the notices, as sent by this Court on 27/5/2019, has been served to the respondent No. 2 through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar personally on the respondent No. 2 as per the report dtd. 4/7/2019. On 5/7/2019, this Court considering the fact that respondent No. 2 has been recently served with the notice, had directed the matter to be posted in the week commencing from 15/7/2019, in order to enable the respondent No. 2 to put in appearance and file her objection to the delay Condonation application. Even till today, respondent No. 2 has not put in appearance to oppose the delay Condonation application or the Criminal Revision itself. Hence, this Court has got no option except to consider the propriety of the delay of 66 days, which has chanced in preferring the revision, in view of the averments, which have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation Application, where the reasons assigned by the revisionist has been explained due to insufficiency of funds availability with the revisionist to prefer the Revision in time. Though, not being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application, but in the wider interest of justice, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed and the delay of 66 days, which has chanced in filing the Revision, would stand condoned.

(3.) The Revision, itself, has been preferred against the impugned order dtd. 18/12/2018, as passed by the Judge Family Court, Haridwar, District Haridwar in Case No. 284 of 2018, Smt. Ritu v. Arun Kumar under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, at the time of considering the application for the grant of interim maintenance, i.e. paper No. 7-A, the learned Family Court had directed for remittance of interim maintenance @ Rs.4,000.00 p.m. to the respondent No. 2, which has been directed to be paid by the revisionist by 10th of each month. While considering the application for the grant of interim maintenance, the Family Court had considered the impact of the income accruing to the revisionist, which has been accruing to the revisionist from his business of General Merchandise, where, the respondent No. 2 has pleaded that an amount of Rs.35,000.00 is being earned by the revisionist every month.