Uttarakhand High Court
C482/25/2011 of SHOWAT SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR on 30 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No.25 of 2011 Showat Singh … Applicant vs. State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P. S. Soan, A.G.A. for the State. U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. An application
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No.25 of 2011
Showat Singh
… Applicant
vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P. S. Soan, A.G.A. for the State.
U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. An application for grant of maintenance was moved by Smt. Geeta (wife) against Showat Singh (husband) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. Husband contested the application. Parties led the evidence. Two witnesses, namely, Smt. Geeta and Vijay Singh were examined on behalf of wife. Two witnesses, namely, Showat Singh and Raja Ram were examined on behalf of the husband.
2. After considering the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate 1[st], Tehri Garhwal allowed the application of the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2010, whereby the husband (applicant herein) was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife and a sum of Rs.1,000/- each to his two daughters (total Rs.4,000/- to his wife and daughters) as maintenance allowance.
3. Feeling aggrieved, a criminal revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. The Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2010, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate.
4. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by husband.
5. This Court while issuing notice to the private respondents on 10.01.2011 passed the following order:
“If the petitioner deposits Rs.3,000/- per month on the 10[th] of every month in future, and entire arrears at the rate of Rs.3,000/- within a month, the execution of the order shall remain stayed.”
6. Notice was issued to the private respondents. Registry has made an endorsement that respondents no.2 to 4 have been served personally. Yet, none has appeared for the private respondents before this Court.
7. Considering the facts of the case and after going through the impugned judgment, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the findings recorded by the trial court, as upheld by the revisional court, that the husband, having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain his wife and his legitimate daughters, except the monthly maintenance allowance, which should be in conformity with the interim order passed by this Court on 10.01.2011.
8. The order dated 10.01.2011 passed by this Court is, therefore, made absolute.
9. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly disposed of finally.
(U. C. Dhyani, J.)
Dated 30[th] December, 2013 Rawat