Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
No
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
28.06.2024
CRLR No. 434 of 2024
Hon’ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. Narendra Bali, counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present revision has been filed by the revisionist
against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2024 passed
by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee,
District Haridwar in Case No. 366 of 2019, whereby the
said court has decided the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. and awarded Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of
respondent no.2/daughter.
4. A delay condonation application has been filed by
the revisionist with the averments that the delay of three
days in filing the revision has been caused due to the
reason that the revisionist had no knowledge about the
impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2024; that,
when he knew about the said judgment then he
approached this Court by filing the present revision.
For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned.
5. Counsel for the revisionist would submit that
marriage of the revisionist and respondent no.3/Smt.
Ranjeeta (since deceased) was solemnized on
18.04.2018; that, out of the marriage a girl child, namely,
Km. Bhavi (respondent no.2 herein) was also born; that,
due to some matrimonial discord, the respondent
no.3/wife (since deceased) started living separately along
with her daughter/respondent no.2; that, the respondent
no.3/wife moved an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance; that, during the
pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
the respondent no.3/ wife of the petitioner died on
18.11.2021, thereafter, brother of respondent no.3 moved
an application under Section 302 r/w Section 256 Cr.P.C.
for conducting the case on behalf of minor daughter of
respondent no.3 i.e. respondent no.2 herein.
He would further submit that revisionist also filed
his objection to the said application on the ground that
after the death his wife, the revisionist is the sole guardian
of his minor daughter and also filed a Suit under Section
7/25 of the Guardian and Wards Act claiming
guardianship of his daughter, which is still pending
adjudication.
6. Learned State vehemently opposed the submission
advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist,
thereafter, supporting the impugned orders passed by the
court below.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on file.
8. It is trite that the scope of jurisdiction of revision is
not as vast as that of appeal. In my view, while
considering the revision application, the revisional court
have a limited scope. In the revisional jurisdiction, the
Court has to see whether there is any illegality,
impropriety or incorrectness in the order assailed before
the Court, or any irregularity in the proceedings adopted
by the court below.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the court
below had partly allowed the application for interim
`
maintenance and granted interim maintenance of 3,000/-
in favour of minor daughter only. It is admitted on oath
by the revisionist that as per the disclosure of assets in the
lower court, the revisionist is getting Rs.10,000/- per
month as salary, thus, the interim maintenance granted to
the minor cannot be said to be on the higher side.
10. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the court
below shows that the court has dealt with all the aspects
of the matter and has thereafter passed the impugned
judgment.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not point
out any other irregularity in the proceedings of the lower
court or any impropriety, illegality and incorrectness in
the impugned orders.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of
the view that there is no reason to make any interference
in the impugned judgment and order. The revision
deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage.
13. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed in
limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
28.06.2024
Mamta