AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
Both these revisions arise from common judgment dated 21.02.2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 332 of 2010, Smt. Parul Khugshal and Another
Vs. Shri Sanjeev Khugshal by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as ‘the case’).
By the impugned judgment and order, Sanjeev Khugshal has been directed to pay Rs.7000/- per month to Smt. Parul and Rs.5000/- per month to
her daughter, as maintenance. Sanjeev Khugshal preferred Criminal Revision No. 68 of 2017 against the impugned judgment and order and Smt. Parul
and Mansi challenged the order for enhancement of the maintenance amounting to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month.
Since, both the revisions arise from a common judgment, they are decided together by this judgment.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In this judgment, Sanjeev Khugshal shall be referred to as the revisionist and Parul Khusghal and Mansi shall be referred to as respondent.
Revisionist and respondent Parul married on 13.04.2001. Out of the wedlock, respondent Mansi was born in the year 2002. Parties started living
separately. Daughter Mansi is staying with the respondent Parul. An application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) was filed by the respondents. After considering the rival statements and evidence no record, learned
court below vide impugned judgment and order directed the revisionist to pay Rs.7000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent Parul and
Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent Mansi.
On behalf of the respondent, learned counsel would argue that the salary of the revisionist is more than Rs.45,000/-; the respondent Km. Mansi is a
student and the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.12,000/- to the respondents is not sufficient for them to lead a life of the status, which the revisionist is
enjoying, therefore, it is argued that the amount of maintenance should be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per month.
At the time of argument, it was told that the net salary of the revisionist was about 46,000/- per month, at the relevant time. The mother of
revisionist is also getting family pension because father of the revisionist was on Government job. Revisionist got employment in dying in harness.
They have their own house. Respondent Parul and daughter Mansi are staying in the Government accommodation allotted to the revisionist. The wife
and children are entitled for the maintenance, so that they can live a life of dignity commensurate to the status of their husband and father
respectively. Revisionist Sanjeev Khugshal has no other liability because her mother also gets pension. Respondent Mansi is a growing child having
dreams in her eyes and avenues for education.
Having considered all these factors, this Court is of the view that, in fact, while granting the maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to respondent
Parul and Rs.5000/- to the respondent Mansi, learned court below did commit an impropriety. The impugned judgment is not correct. It is not based on
the material on record. While passing the impugned order, the court below did not consider the material i.e. the income of the Sanjeev Khugshal and
his mother and their corresponding liabilities.
Having considered the income of revisionist Sanjeev Khugshal and the requirement commensurate with the status of the revisionist Sanjeev
Khugshal, this Court is of the view that the amount of maintenance deserves to be enhanced. Respondent Parul should get Rs.15,000/- per month as
maintenance and respondent Mansi should get Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.
Accordingly, the revision filed by Smt. Parul and Mansi deserves to be allowed.
Revisionist Sanjeev Khugshal shall pay Rs.15000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent Parul and Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance
to the respondent Mansi. (Total Rs. 25,000/- per month)
The impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent as above.
The Revision filed by Sanjeev Khugshal is dismissed.
The Revision filed by Smt. Parul and Km. Mansi is allowed accordingly.