Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 545 (UTT)

Manish Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-09-20

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Since, both these revisions arise from one and the same judgement, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In this judgment reference to revisionists and respondents shall correspond to Criminal Revision No.413 of 2019. 3. The challenge in these revision is made to the order dated 04.05.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.03 of 2016, Smt. Nisha Kashyap vs. Manish Kumar, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar (“the case”), by which, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) by the respondent no.2 (“the wife”), seeking maintenance for herself and respondent no.3 (“minor daughter”) has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.8,000/- per month the minor daughter, as maintenance. 4. In Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2019, the revisionist has sought quashing of impugned judgment and order, passed in the case and in Criminal Revision No.259 of 2019, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have sought enhancement of the compensation granted them in the case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code by the wife seeking maintenance from the revisionist for herself and her minor daughter. 7. It has been the case of the wife that she was married to the revisionist on 23.02.2012, but the revisionist had illicit relations with his sister-in-law prior to his marriage; he continued his relationship; he started beating, harassing and torturing his wife. In her application the wife has given details of the incidents that had happened to her; finally it records that on 28.09.2012, the revisionist took his wife in his official residence at Haridwar. But again, he deserted his wife and continued the relationship with his sister-in-law. According to the application, the revisionist had neglected in maintaining his wife and daughter. He gets Rs.55,000/- per month salary from BHEL, Haridwar. The wife has sought Rs.40,000/- maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. 8. In his objections, the revisionist denied all the allegations. But again, he deserted his wife and continued the relationship with his sister-in-law. According to the application, the revisionist had neglected in maintaining his wife and daughter. He gets Rs.55,000/- per month salary from BHEL, Haridwar. The wife has sought Rs.40,000/- maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. 8. In his objections, the revisionist denied all the allegations. According to the objections, the allegations were falsely levelled; the wife would always suspect the movements of the revisionist; it is the wife, who had expelled the revisionist from the matrimonial house; once the court had sent both the revisionist and his wife to stay together, but the wife did not allow him to enter into the house, of which, a report was also lodged; the revisionist has also stated that the wife is an educated woman; she takes tuitions and earns Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. 9. Both the parties adduced evidence in the case. On behalf of the wife, she got herself examined whereas, the revisionist examined himself. Parties also filed documents. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist would submit that the circumstances have changed after the impugned order was passed. He would submit that during the pendency of the case an application under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was pending between the parties, which has now been decided on 04.11.2021 in Original Suit No. 520 of 2016, Smt. Nisha Kashyap vs. Manish Kumar by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar (“the original suit”). Learned counsel would submit that in the original suit, the court has held that the wife has been unable to prove that the revisionist is staying separate from her without a reasonable cause. It is argued that the changed circumstances i.e. the judgment dated 04.09.2021, passed in the original suit has a binding effect. Therefore, revisionist seeks liberty to move an application for alteration of the maintenance amount under Section 127 of the Code. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent would submit that the revisionist may take the liberty to move an application under Section 127 of the Code, but he would submit that whatever statement was given by the wife in the original suit that were given with the hope that perhaps parties may be reunited and continue with their matrimonial life. 12. It is a revision. 12. It is a revision. A revision may only be entertained to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of a judgment, decree or order. Evidence generally, is not evaluated in a revision unless the finding is perverse i.e. it is without any evidence or irrelevant material has been considered or relevant material has been ignored. 13. As such, no argument has been raised on behalf of the revisionist assailing the legality, propriety or correctness of the impugned judgment. 14. The perusal of the judgments reveals that the court below has discussed the evidences and thereafter, recorded its conclusion while deciding the application under Section 125 of the Code. In the impugned judgment, it is categorically concluded that it is the revisionist, who has deserted his wife and minor daughter; the impugned order also records that there is no evidence that the wife earns money by tuitions or by any other mode. The court has recorded finding with regard to the income of the revisionist also. 15. Learned counsel for the private respondent would submits that admittedly, the revisionist was getting Rs.55,000/- per month salary when the impugned judgment was passed. He would submit that since, there are only three members i.e. the revisionist, his wife and the minor daughter, the money could be divided in three parts and, accordingly, the private respondents should be awarded not less than Rs.35,000/- per month, as maintenance. 16. On the other hand learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the private respondents are staying in the house allotted in the name of the revisionist; the revisionist has been forced to stay away from that house. Therefore, the amount of maintenance need not any enhancement. 17. Admittedly, the revisionist is not staying in the house that has been allotted to him by his department. It is his wife, who stays in that house along with her minor girl child. In para 11 of the impugned judgment, it is stated that earlier the salary of the revisionist was Rs.38,000/-. The court had noted that perhaps there is increase in the salary of the revisionist. 18. In the matters of grant of maintenance the Court always tries to reach nearer to the amount that may be sufficient for maintenance. Admittedly, the revisionist was getting Rs.55,000/- per month salary when the impugned judgment was passed. The court had noted that perhaps there is increase in the salary of the revisionist. 18. In the matters of grant of maintenance the Court always tries to reach nearer to the amount that may be sufficient for maintenance. Admittedly, the revisionist was getting Rs.55,000/- per month salary when the impugned judgment was passed. It is also admitted fact that the respondent nos.2 and 3, the wife and the child of the revisionist Manish Kashyap are staying in the official accommodation allotted to the revisionist. In view of the financial resources of the revisionist and other attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Court below has rightly fixed the amount of maintenance which is to be paid by the revisionist. 19. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, both the revisions deserve to be dismissed. 20. Both the revisions are dismissed. However, if any of the parties may like to approach the court under Section 127 of the Code, they are free to do so.