1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 138 of 2010 Sri Niranjan Mishra @ Niranjan Chaitanya S/o Sri Manind Mishra R/o Punjab Singh Kshetra Sadhu Mahavidhyalaya, Maniram Marg, Rishikesh, Dehradun District Dehradun …………. Revisionist Versus 1. Km. Ira D/o Sri Niranjan Mishra R/o 56 Maniram Marg, Rishikesh District Dehradun 2. Master Parth @ Udit Mishra S/o Sri Niranjan Mishra R/o 56 Maniram Marg, Rishikesh District Dehradun ……….Respondents Shri Neeraj Garg, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri Tapan Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Lokpal Singh, Advocate, present for the respondents. And Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2010 2 Km. Ira D/o Sri Niranjan Mishra R/o 56 Maniram Marg, Rishikesh District Dehradun …………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand. 2. Sri Niranjan Mishra @ Niranjan Chaitanya S/o Sri Manind Mishra R/o Punjab Singh Kshetra Sadhu Mahavidhyalaya, Maniram Marg, Rishikesh, Dehradun District Dehradun ……….Respondents Shri, Tapan Singh Advocate, present for the revisionist Shri, Neeraj Garg, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2 Smt Mamta Bisht, A.G.A, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Both these revisions are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2010, passed by Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, in Miscellaneous (Criminal) Case No. 05 of 2009, whereby said court has directed Niranjan Mishra 3 @ Niranjan Chaitanya to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month to his daughter Km. Ira, and ` 5,000/- per month to his son Master Parth @ Udit Mishra. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the papers on record. (3) Brief facts of the case are that, Sri Niranjan Mishra @ Niranjan Chaitanya got married to Manjula Mishra in the year 1987. Two children namely Km. Ira and Master Parth @ Udit Mishra were born out of the wedlock. Parties to matrimony got separated after a decree of divorce was passed in the year 1999. Sri Niranjan Mishra @ Niranjan Chaitanya father of the two children is a Principal in Punjab Singh Kshetra Sadhu Mahavidhyalaya, (A private Institution), and his salary is said to be ` 25,000/- per month. The two children filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the trial court claiming maintenance at the rate of ` 7,000/- per month for each one of them (in all ` 14,000/- per month for both the children). 4 (4) Sri Niranjan Mishra @ Niranjan Chaitanya contested the application, and it was pleaded that the children along with their mother are forcibly living in his house known as property no. 56 Maniram Road, Rishikesh. It is also alleged by the father that he was falsely implicated in criminal cases by his wife, and he had suffered Paralytic attack. It is also pleaded by him that he himself is living in a rented accommodation where he is paying ` 3,000/- per month, on rent. (5) After recording the evidence of the parties the trial court directed the father (Sri Niranjan Mishra @ Niranjan Chaitanya) to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month to the son (Master Parth @ Udit Mishra), and ` 5,000/- per month to the daughter (Km. Ira). Aggrieved by said order dated 23.06.2010, passed by Additional Judge Family Court, Rishikesh, revision has been filed by the daughter seeking enhancement for the maintenance. On the other hand, her father has filed the revision challenging the order passed by the trial court. 5 (6) Admittedly, Niranjan Mishra @ Niranjan Chaitanya is father of the two children, Km. Ira and Master Parth @ Udit Mishra. It is also not disputed that he was Principal in Punjab Singh Kshetra Sadhu Mahavidhyalaya, and was earning ` 25,000/- per month. On the other hand, it is also not disputed on the record that children are living in the house owned by the father. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that trial court has rightly directed the father to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month to the daughter, and ` 5,000/- per month to the minor son. (7) Learned counsel for the Niranjan Mishra pointed out that now Shri Parth @ Udit Mishra has become major with effect from 02.11.2009, as such, he is not entitled to any maintenance after said date. This fact is not disputed fact that during pendency of the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C, Parth @ Udit Mishra has become major. Therefore, the plea of the father deserves to be accepted that Parth @ Udit Mishra is not 6 entitled to maintenance after 02.11.2009. (8) However, as far as Km. Ira is concerned, since she is still unmarried, her age of majority has not relevance in the present case. She is also said to be major. However, she continues to be entitled to the maintenance directed to be paid by the trial court. (9) Learned counsel for the Km. Ira pleaded that the amount directed to be paid to Km. Ira is not sufficient. However, considering the economic status of Niranjan Mishra, and the fact that the daughter is living in the house owned by her father, this court does not find any scope of enhancing the amount of ` 5,000/- per month directed to be paid by the trial court to her. (10) For the reasons as discussed above, both the revisions are dismissed with the observation the Shri Parth @ Udit Mishra shall not be entitled to any amount of maintenance from his father with effect from 02.11.2009. However, he can recover the amount payable prior to said date. 7 Km. Ira would continue to get maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month, until she gets married. The interim order dated 14.09.2010, stands hereby vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.13.9.2011 N.P