RAHUL DEWAN Vs. MICKY DEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 23/1/2024 as well as order dtd. 1/4/2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram (hereinafter to be referred as the 'concerned Family Court'). At the outset; it is noticeable herein that, though in the prayer clause in the instant revision petition, challenge has been laid to the order dtd. 23/1/2024 as also order dtd. 1/4/2024 passed by the concerned Family Court but a copy of the order dtd. 23/1/2024 has not even been annexed in the instant revision petition. The opening sheet in the instant revision also shows that challenge has only been laid to order dtd. 1/4/2024 passed by the concerned Family Court. Also, no arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the rival parties qua veracity of order dtd. 23/1/2024. Therefore; it is indubitable that, in essence, challenge has been only laid to order dtd. 1/4/2024 passed by the concerned Family Court. The said order dtd. 1/4/2024 passed by the concerned Family Court reads as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dtd. 1/4/2024 is against the statute as there is no legislative mandate for grant of any ad-interim maintenance/provisional maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C pending final disposal of an application for interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is doing a private job at Gurugram and he is also having old aged parents to look after. Therefore, even the quantum of ad-interim (provisional maintenance) awarded, vide the impugned order dtd. 1/4/2024, is on the higher side. Thus, it has been prayed that the instant petition be accepted and the impugned order dtd. 1/4/2024 be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the petitioner (herein) has been directed to pay Rs.15,000.00 per month to the respondents (herein) from the date of the order i.e. 1/4/2024 as ad-interim maintenance (provisional maintenance) to tide over the difficulties being faced by the respondents (herein) during the pendency of application for interim maintenance. Learned counsel has further submitted that even; if there is no statutory mandate in Cr.P.C., 1973 to grant provisional maintenance/ad-interim maintenance; yet, the factual matrix of the lis indicates that the ad-interim maintenance (provisional maintenance) was required to be paid to the respondents (herein) in view of financial difficulties being faced by them. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.