AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the revisionist, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for respondent No. 1, and Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to. 4.
By means of present criminal revision, the applicant is challenging the order of the revisional Court dated 17.12.2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital on an application moved by the wife u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby a maintenance of Rs. 2,500/ - (Two Thousand Five Hundred) has been fixed for the minor children of the revisionist.
The principal contention of the of the revisionist before this Court is that earlier the revisionist had filed a Suit for dissolution of marriage, which was dismissed. Then in an appeal being First Appeal No. 73 of 2007 Sri Harish Chandra Singh Chilwal v. Smt. Pushpa, the suit was decreed and it has been specifically stated by the Division Bench of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ - (Ten Lacs) is liable to be given by the revisionist to the wife, particularly in view of the fact that the revisionist has two minor children who are residing there with the wife.
A statement has been made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that in compliance of the order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the said amount has been paid to the wife. The counsel for the revisionist would argue that the principal reason of this Court while fixing the said amount was the future of the two minor children who are with the wife. Since this amount has been paid, there was no occasion for the learned Family Court to have passed an order for fixing an amount of Rs. 2,500/ - per month as maintenance for the two children, even though the Family Judge was apprised of the order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court.
Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would contend, on the other hand that the children will have an independent right to the maintenance and it has got nothing to do with the maintenance so fixed by the Division Bench of this Court.
The rival contention of the parties is based upon their own interpretation of the order of the Division Bench. Any interference by this Court therefore would in any case amount to a revision or clarification of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.7.2008. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is necessary that the matter must be placed before the Division Bench as the entire arguments of the revisionist as well as the respondents would rest upon the interpretation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
It is, therefore, the considered opinion of this Court that it would be appropriate if the same Division Bench hears the present matter.
Registry is directed to pass an appropriate order.