AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This is Delay Condonation Application No. 488 of 2010 for condonation of delay in filing the revision.
Heard.
There is Delay of 103 days in filing the revision which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit of Smt. Ambika Joshi (revisionist).
Therefore, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
Also heard on admission, and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2009, passed by Sessions Judge Uttarkashi in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2009, whereby said court has suspended the order of maintenance, passed by the Magistrate u/s 125 of Cr.P.C, till the revisionist is in job.
Heard
Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist (Ambika Joshi) is wife of respondent Shanti Prasad. On her application (Criminal Misc. Case No. M176 of 1999) 125 of Cr.P.C ., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2001, awarded Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to the revisionist. It appears that later, an application was moved for enhancement of the amount u/s 127 of Cr.P.C, by the wife (revisionist), and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 1400/- per month. Said order was challenged by the respondent before the Sessions Judge and the enhanced amount of maintenance was reduced to Rs. 1000/- per month. Subsequently, it appears that the revisionist got engaged as Aaganwari Karyakarti. Due to this development, the husband (respondent) moved filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 2009 for cancelling the order directing to pay maintenance. The Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, vide his order dated 10.04.2009 rejected the application. On this the respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2009. Learned Sessions Judge Uttarkashi, after hearing the parties allowed said revision and suspended the order of payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month so long as the wife is in job.
Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionist and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the revisional court suspending the order of maintenance, so long as the wife is in job. Therefore, the revision is dismissed summarily.