Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 128 (UTT)

Ravi Kant Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-02-27

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : The challenge in this revision is made to the order of interim maintenance dated 16.01.2024, passed in Criminal Case No. 104 of 2023, Smt. Anugya Shaiwal Vs. Ravi Kant Sagar, by the court of Family Judge, Dehradun (“the case”). By the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month interim relief to the respondent no.2, Smt. Anugya Shaiwal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 3. It appears that the respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) seeking maintenance from the revisionist. According to the respondent no.2, she and the revisionist and were married on 27.02.2020, but after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. She was beaten up at Ballari, Karnataka, where the revisionist resides. The respondent no.2 wanted to report the matter in the month of June, 2021, but due to fear of the revisionist, she could not dare to do so. According to the respondent no.2, she is not able to maintain herself, though she is highly qualified, whereas, it is stated that the revisionist gets Rs. 1,50,000/- salary and he works in Jindal Steel Works. 4. In the case, an application for interim relief was also filed by the respondent no.2. The revisionist filed objections. According to him, the respondent no.2 was not harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. Instead, according to the revisionist, it is the respondent no.2, who was behaving in a weird manner. She would seek directions her mother on small issues and had taken all social media passwords of the revisionist. She has used the account of the revisionist. The revisionist also denied that he gets Rs. 1,50,000/- salary, instead he gets Rs. 70,000/-, whereas, the respondent no.2 is highly educated person, who can earn for her livelihood. 5. By the impugned order, the court below held that the revisionist has means, despite that he has neglected in giving maintenance to the respondent no.2, and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month as interim maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of maintenance is on higher side. 5. By the impugned order, the court below held that the revisionist has means, despite that he has neglected in giving maintenance to the respondent no.2, and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month as interim maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of maintenance is on higher side. It is argued that the court below has not correctly assessed the monthly income of the revisionist, which is less that Rs. 1 Lakh, whereas, the Court had assumed that the total salary of the revisionist is Rs. 1,13,784/-. It is also argued that the revisionist has liability to maintain his parents and two younger brothers. He would also submit that the respondent no.2 is a well educated person. She could earn and maintain herself. It is also argued that the respondent no.2 is staying separate without any reasonable cause. 7. The impugned order only decides the amount of interim maintenance. At this stage, finally no conclusion may be drawn either by the trial court or by this Court. The factum of the marriage of the revisionist and the respondent no.2 is admitted. It is also admitted that they stayed together. It is today admitted that both are living separate. There are divergent versions with regard to the reasons of separation. On the one hand, the private respondent claims that she was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry in her in-laws house by the revisionist and others. On the other hand, it is the claim made on behalf of the revisionist that the respondent no.2 is staying separate without any reasons. This would find adjudication after parties adduce evidence. 8. Insofar as the income is concerned, admittedly, the respondent no.2 is not earning anything, though, she claims that she is highly educated. This fact is not denied. But merely being highly qualified may not deny maintenance to a person unless he or she earns for his or her maintenance. The revisionist claims that his salary has wrongly been assessed as Rs. 1,13,784/- because it includes some allowances also. 9. In the revision, at Para 12, the revisionist writes that his income is around Rs. 90,000/- per month. In the impugned order, at Paragraphs 12 and 13, a discussion at great length has been made with regard to the income of the revisionist. 1,13,784/- because it includes some allowances also. 9. In the revision, at Para 12, the revisionist writes that his income is around Rs. 90,000/- per month. In the impugned order, at Paragraphs 12 and 13, a discussion at great length has been made with regard to the income of the revisionist. The court has considered the bank statement of the revisionist. The court has observed that the revisionist deliberately did not submit his latest payslip. The court records that in the month of May, 2023, total Rs. 98,888/- salary was deposited in the account of the revisionist, and in the month of June, 2023, total Rs. 1,13,784/- were deposited. What is being argued is that this Rs. 1,13,784/- also includes allowances. But, this is not disputed that in the month of May, 2023, total 98,888/- were deposited in the account of the revisionist. 10. In Para 13, the court has also assessed the liability of the revisionist, and accordingly, assessed the amount of interim maintenance. 11. This is a revision. The scope is restricted to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. 12. The impugned order, in the instant case is well reasoned and is based on the material available on record. The amount of maintenance that has been fixed by the court below cannot be termed as excessive, as the court below has considered the liability and social status of the parties. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in this revision. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself. 13. The revision is dismissed in limine.