YOGENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
YOGENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Smt. Kiran Singh and Kumar Raja moved an application against the opposite party Yogendra Kumar Sharma (revisionist herein), Sub Inspector, U.P. Police, for grant of maintenance allowance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said application was decided by learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, vide order dated 09.03.2004. The application of Smt. Kiran Singh was dismissed. Applicant No. 2 Kumar Raja was held to be entitled to Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance allowance. The opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 2000/- to his son on the 10th date of every month (from the date of the Judgment). Learned counsel for the opposite party/revisionist submitted that the maintenance allowance was being paid to Kumar Raja regularly. Thereafter, an application under Section 127(i) Cr.P.C. was moved by Kumar Raja alias Vaibhav Kaushik, minor son of the revisionist Yogendra Kumar Sharma for enhancement of maintenance allowance. The application under Section 127 (i) Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, vide order dated 11.09.2007. The maintenance allowance of Rs. 2000/- was increased to Rs. 3000/- per month (from the date of passing of the order). Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 11.09.2007, present criminal revision was preferred by the opposite party/revisionist.
(2.) This fact is under no dispute that Kumar Raja s mother is the 2nd wife of the revisionist. It is also an admitted fact that the revisionist has six children out of his marriage with the first wife. This fact is also under no dispute that Kumar Raja is the son of opposite party/revisionist. Kumar Raja was born on 26.11.1996. By that analogy, Kumar Raja will be attaining the age of majority in November, 2014. When the judgment was delivered by learned Judge, Family Court, the applicant/respondent no. 2 Kumar Raja was studying in Doon Global School, Dehradun. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the interim maintenance allowance being paid regularly to Kumar Raja, vide order dated 28.09.2007 of this Court. The execution of the order dated 11.09.2007 was stayed provided the revisionist pays Rs. 2500/- per month to respondent no. 2 by the 10th day of each month.
(3.) It cannot be said that Kumar Raja is not entitled to maintenance allowance from the opposite party/revisionist. Learned Judge, Family Court found enough reasons for increasing the maintenance allowance of Kumar Raja from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/-. The basic pay of the revisionist was fixed at Rs. 9500/- per month. It was held that the opposite party was receiving a salary of Rs. 18000 -19000 per month. It was also observed, although as a matter of passing reference, that the total montly income of the revisionist was Rs. 50,000/- per month, but the same was not established. There appears no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.09.2007 so far as the enhancement of the maintenance allowance from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- is concerned. Revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to Kumar Raja from the date of the impugned order dated 11.09.2007.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.