IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 196 of 2009 Sanjeeta Sharma, W/o Shri Subodh Sharma, D/o Shri Chand Prakash R/o 127/1, Badri Bagh, Dehradun District-Dehradun ………..…Revisionist. Versus Subodh Sharma, So/ Shri Satyaveer Sharma, Ganga Nagar, Rishikesh Disrtict-Dehradun ……..…Respondent. Shri S.K. Jain ,Advocate present for Sanjeeta Sharma. Shri Manish Arora, Advocate present for Subodh Sharma. Alongwith Criminal Revision No. 197 of 2009 Subodh Sharma, So/ Shri Satyaveer Sharma, Ganga Nagar, Rishikesh Disrtict-Dehradun ………..Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Home, Dehradun 2. Subodh Sharma, So/ Shri Satyaveer Sharma, Ganga Nagar, Rishikesh Disrtict-Dehradun ……..Respondents 2 Shri Manish Arora, Advocate present for Subodh Sharma. Shri S.K. Jain ,Advocate present for Sanjeeta Sharma Shri. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Both these revisions are directed against the order dated 20.10.2009, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, in case No. 181 of 2005, whereby said court has directed the husband (Subodh Sharma) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- (three thousand five hundred) per month to the wife (Sanjeeta Sharma) under section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the date of order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties to the matrimony are also present in person. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Sanjeeta Sharma got married to Subodh Sharma on 29.04.2004, at Dehradun. However, after the marriage, their relations soured. Sanjeeta Sharma (wife) filed a petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for decree of divorce which was decreed on 24.07.2009. Meanwhile, it appears that she had filed 3 criminal misc. case No. 181 of 2005, for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. The trial court (after decree of divorce had been passed) called the parties, made reconciliation efforts and passed the following consented order-; “28.10.2009;- Case called out. Both the parties are present with counsel. Both the parties stated that they are ready to finalise the petition on Rs. 3,500/- (three thousand five hundred) per month against the maintenance. Accordingly, petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of. Opposite party is directed to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,500/-(three thousand five hundred) to the petitioner from the date of order. No default in payment of maintenance. Let the record be consigned.” 4 4. Perusal of the above order clearly shows that the said order was passed by the trial court after taking consent from the counsel of the parties. The only point pressed before this Court on behalf of the wife is that though the amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month (three thousand five hundred) was agreed upon but she has not consented that the same be paid from the date of order. Her case is that she was entitled to maintenance from the date of application. On the other hand, the husband (Subodh Sharma) has pleaded that he had not consented to make the payment as observed by the trial court. 5. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and the parties in person this Court finds that the trial court has passed the order as consented by the parties who are present with their counsel before the said court. 6. In the above circumstances this Court is not inclined either to direct that the amount be paid from the date of application, or to direct that the amount directed to pay is more than what was agreed upon. 5 6. Therefore, both these revisions are dismissed, with the observation that Subodh sharma (husband) is directed to make payment of the arrears of the maintenance from the date of the order passed by the trial court, within the period of 45 days from today, before the trial court in favour of the Sanjeeta Sharma, and the future amount shall be paid by fifteenth of every next month. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:15.04.2010 parul 6