IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 794 of 2010 Gautam Chadha …..…..Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Date of Decision : 31.8.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 22.6.2010, whereby the Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh has directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,24,200/-, which is for the maintenance of his two minor children. 3. The case of the applicant before this Court is that the amount has wrongly been calculated. He has given the list of the amount at Paragraph -4 of the application, which is the amount paid by him by way of Demand Drafts to his wife for maintenance of his two minor children. Moreover, the amount of Rs. 1,700/- (One Thousand Seven Hundred) per month has been reduced to Rs. 1,000/- per month for each child. In other words, the applicant has now to give Rs. 2,000/- per month and not Rs. 3,400/- per month to the children, as it was earlier. 4. On 27.8.2010, time was given to respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are represented by Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate to file their counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf in the Court today. The same is taken on record. In the counter affidavit, the averments of the applicant have been rebutted and the averments made in Paragraph -4 of the application have been denied. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that an amount of Rs. 1,24,200/- is still due on the applicant. The applicant says that the calculation she has 2 made is at the rate of Rs. 1,700/- per month and not Rs. 1,000/- per month, as directed by the interim order of this Court. The reason for this, according to respondent nos. 2 and 3, is that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- has not been deposited by the applicant in time, which was 10th of each month, therefore, a default has been committed and as such, he will not be given the benefit of the interim order. It is made clear that vide the interim order of this Court dated 6.6.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2008 this amount of Rs. 2000/- had to be deposited by the 10th of every month. The counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 alleges that this interim order has been violated and since the interim order itself states that it will automatically stand vacated even in one single default, no benefit of this order can be granted to the applicant. 5. The reason for the delay in payment has, however, been explained by the applicant stating that he stays at Delhi and the amount has to be deposited in Rishikesh. He has also stated that he has repeatedly asked his wife to furnish her Bank Account Number so that promptly the money be deposited in the concerned Bank, which he is liable to pay, this Bank Account Number has, in fact, not been furnished to the applicant so far. On this, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the order dated 22.6.2010 and is hereby set aside. The Family Court will consider the matter afresh. The interim maintenance liable to be given by the husband (present applicant) is only at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to each child as fixed by the interim order of this Court. Based on this determination, the arrears of the amount has to be fixed by the Court below. In the interest of justice, it is further directed that the Family Court will consider the furnishing of the Bank Account Number of respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the applicant so that the money be promptly deposited in the concerned Bank. The applicant as well as respondent nos. 2 and 3 are being represented by Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate respectively. In the interest of justice, it is directed that they shall be present in the Court below on 20.9.2010. The Family Court has to take a decision in the matter as per the directions given above. 3 6. With the aforesaid directions, the instant C-482 application is disposed of. 7. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 31.08.2010 Rathour