IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 755 of 2005 Kishori Lal .……Applicant. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …….….…..Respondent. Present: Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Date of Decision : 7.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the husband, primarily, aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag on an application moved by wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant before this Court is husband of respondent no. 2 and father of respondent no. 3. Smt. Rukma Devi, wife of the present applicant moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in a detail order dated 11.8.2005 after hearing both the parties fixed the maintenance for wife / respondent no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- (One Thousand Five Hundred) per month and for the daughter at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Five Hundred) per month and the arrears were to be paid by the applicant from the date of filing of the application. This order was challenged by the applicant in a Revision being Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2005 Kishori Lal Vs. Rukma Devi and others. Vide an interim order dated 16.9.2005, the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag admittd the revision and directed that the half of the amount, which was liable to be paid by the applicant/revisionist, shall be paid by 24.9.2005. However, this order was not complied with and the Criminal Revision filed by the applicant was dismissed on 24.9.2005 with the following order: “No compliance made as ordered on 16.9.2005. Hence it shall stand dismissed.” 2 3. Aggrieved the applicant filed the present criminal misc. application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. Vide an interim order dated 28.10.2005, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag was stayed subject to the condition that the applicant would pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand) to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 regularly every month. 4. A statement has been made at the bar by Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the applicant that in compliance of the order dated 28.10.2005, he has been regularly paying a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to respondent nos. 2 and 3. 5. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for non- prosecution by this Court on 13.7.2010 and the interim order dated 28.10.2005 was also vacated. 6. This matter has come up before this Court on Recall/Restoration Application (MCRC No. 753 of 2010). 7. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the restoration application. 8. Applicant is a government servant and is a Clerk in Supply Department at District Rudraprayag. 9. For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application (CRMA No. 995 of 2010), delay in filing the Restoration Application (MCRC No. 753 of 2010) is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. The order dated 13.7.2010 is being recalled and the matter is restored to its original number. The Restoration Application (MCRC No. 753 of 2010) is accordingly allowed. Heard parties on merits. 10. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has stated that the maintenance fixed on the husband at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month itself is quite low considering the present price inflation. However, he also admits that he has not filed any revision against the order of the Judicial Magistrate. 3 11. The applicant says that on the date his revision was dismissed, an amount of Rs. 28,000/- was due on him. Be that as it may, it is hereby directed that the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 28,000/- before the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag as arrears of the maintenance fixed upon him. In case, he deposit such amount within a period of one month, then the revision of the applicant shall be heard on its merits, as the revisional Court has not decided the case on its merits. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that only fifty per cent of that amount which comes to Rs. 14,000/- is liable to be given. This submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is wholly misconceived as the order by which fifty per cent of the amount was liable to be given does not survive any more as the revision has already been dismissed. It is directed that the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag will ensure the applicant deposits a sum of Rs. 28,000/- in the Court, out of which only Rs. 14,000/- shall be given to the respondent (wife) and the remaining Rs. 14,000/- will be given to the party depending upon the decision of the revisional Court. It is clarified that the revisional Court will hear the case on its merits and will not be prejudiced one way or the other by any remarks, if any, made in this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant C-482 application is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 7.9.2010 Rathour