VIRENDRA SINGH S/O LATE RATAN SINGH Vs. NEELAM, W/O VIRENDRA SINGH
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-103
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 26,2013

Virendra Singh S/O Late Ratan Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Neelam, W/O Virendra Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard.
(2.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2009, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 323 of 2006, Neelam Vs. Virendra, whereby said court had directed the revisionist to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 500/- each to his children.
(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that respondent Neelam got married to petitioner Virendra Singh on 26.04.1999. Two children were born out of the wed- lock. Relation between the husband and wife got soured whereafter an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by the wife before Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in which the present revisionist is directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents. It is further contended that the revisionist sent a notice to the opposite party through his counsel requesting her to come home and lead a happy and peaceful matrimonial life but respondent did not return home. The revisionist then filed suit under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right, the respondent appeared before the Family Court where she openly refused to live with the revisionist. Learned Sr. counsel submitted that in view of these facts maintenance awarded is not correct. Earlier an order was passed by this Court on 22.08.2013 by which parties were directed to remain present before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 16.09.2013. In spite of Court's order none appeared for the parties. It appears that parties are not interested for reconciliation. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. It is held by the learned judge that wife has no source of income, however the revisionist is earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thus amount of maintenance has rightly been awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. I do not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.