Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 777 (UTT)

Naveen Batra v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-28

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The present petition is instituted against the judgment dated 07.06.2014, rendered by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2013. 2. “Key facts”, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 19.11.2000 at Shahjahanpur. Out of the wedlock, two sons, namely, Master Sarthak and Master Krishna were born. Respondent no. 2 filed a case against the applicant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, being Misc. Case No. 139 of 2009. The petition was contested by the applicant. According to the averments made in the reply, the applicant is only earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.05.2010 has granted the maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month in addition to Rs.1300/- per month, which was earlier granted by the Family Court, Haridwar. 3. Respondent no. 2 challenged the order dated 05.05.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2013 before the 2nd learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide judgment dated 07.06.2014 granted Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no. 2/wife as well as Rs.4,000/- each to the two children and in addition a sum of Rs.3000/- as house rent, in case respondent/wife stay in Shahjahanpur. 4. Under these circumstances, the order dated 07.06.2014 has been assailed before this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar has drawn a wrong inference that income of the petitioner is Rs.20,000/-. According to the petitioner, he was only running a scanner printing press. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and entire records of the case very carefully. 7. It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is running a printing press and his electric meter is bearing No. 1622/36666. This information has been obtained by the respondent no.2/wife of the applicant under the Right to Information Act. According to the stand of the wife, she wanted to stay with her husband. The placing of income tax returns on the record is an afterthought. 8. This information has been obtained by the respondent no.2/wife of the applicant under the Right to Information Act. According to the stand of the wife, she wanted to stay with her husband. The placing of income tax returns on the record is an afterthought. 8. It is duly established from the income tax returns placed on record that the applicant is the proprietor of M/s Batra Printers, situated at Shahjahanpur. The petitioner is the owner and not working in the printing press. The petitioner is still living with his father. The petitioner is bound to maintain the respondent no.2/wife and two children also. 9. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar has correctly appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence, while assessing the income of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, there in no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.