Mohd Javed v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

CRLR/354/2026 Mohd Javed --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Ms. Nisha Dhami, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Ravindra Singh Rawat, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶2The present Criminal Revision is accompanied by a Delay Condonation Application seeking condonation of a delay of 130 days in filing the revision.

¶3Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 orally opposed Delay Condonation Application, contending that satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the delay.

¶4Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that talks for an amicable settlement between the parties were underway and, therefore, the revision could not be filed earlier. It is submitted that the present revision was preferred only after the settlement talks ultimately failed.

¶5Having considered reasons stated in application and submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist, this finds explanation for delay to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the delay of 130 days in filing the revision is condoned and the Delay Condonation Application is allowed.

¶6The present Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated

03.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No. 31 of 2025 under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the learned Family allowed application for interim maintenance filed by respondent no. 2 and awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 20.01.2025.

¶7Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is earning only about Rs. 12,000/- per month and is not in a financial position to pay the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 is residing in the same house as the revisionist and, therefore, amount of interim maintenance awarded is on the higher side.

¶8Per contra, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2-wife submitted that respondent no. 2 is residing in the house of her parents-in-law. He further submitted that the father of the revisionist has instituted a suit seeking to evict the revisionist from his property; however, despite the pendency of the said suit, the revisionist continues to reside in the same house. It is contended that the said suit has been instituted only with a view to create a defence and avoid the liability of paying maintenance to respondent no. 2-wife. Learned counsel further submitted that the revisionist is running a mobile shop at Haldwani and is the proprietor thereof and, therefore, possesses sufficient means to maintain his wife.

¶9Having heard learned counsel for

the parties and upon perusal of the record, this finds that impugned order has been passed after considering the material available on record and the prima facie financial needs of respondent no. 2. The grant of interim maintenance is intended to provide immediate financial support to claimant spouse during pendency of the proceedings.

¶10At this stage, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity in impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶11Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.

¶12Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 11-08-2026 SB

SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08 b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A 9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.08.11 18:25:44 +05'30'