Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 167 (UTT)

Kshitiz Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-03-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : The challenge in this revision is made to the order of interim maintenance dated 12.12.2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 190 of 2023, Smt. Sugandha Malhotra Vs. Kshitiz Kumar, by the court of Family Judge, Haldwani, District Nainnital (“the case”). By the impugned order, while allowing the interim maintenance application filed by the respondent no.2, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 19,000/- per month interim maintenance to the respondent no.2, Sugandha Malhotra. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It appears that the respondent no.2 filed an application seeking maintenance from the revisionist. According to her, she and the revisionist were married on 24.04.2022, but she has been expelled from her matrimonial house; she is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist earns Rs. 3 Lakhs per month. 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 never treated with cruelty; no marpeet was done with her. It is she, who left the matrimonial house on 27.10.2022 along with her jewellery; she helps her family business and she is also working on various projects of interior designing. The revisionist has also stated in his objections that he simply works as a care taker in the business of her mother. His income is fluctuating. 5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the court held that, in fact, the respondent no.2 is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist’s per month income is assessed as Rs. 1 Lakh 50 thousand. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the finding recorded is not based on law. He would submit that the court below has taken into consideration the matrimonial profile, which was prepared in the year 2021. But, thereafter, it is argued that prior to the marriage of the revisionist, his father expired. Two units of their business had been shut down; only one unit was working. At the relevant time, in the year 2021, the income of the revisionist was though much, but it has been lowered significantly after loss of business when his father expired. It is also argued that, in fact, the respondent no.2 has been working on certain projects of interior designing and she also helps her family business. 7. At the relevant time, in the year 2021, the income of the revisionist was though much, but it has been lowered significantly after loss of business when his father expired. It is also argued that, in fact, the respondent no.2 has been working on certain projects of interior designing and she also helps her family business. 7. By the impugned order, the court has not finally adjudicated the rights, responsibilities or liabilities of the parties. It is a decision on the interim maintenance application. Admittedly the revisionist and the respondent no.2 are husband and wife. They stayed together, as such, for a long. Now, they are separated. There are divergent reasons assigned by the revisionist and the respondent no.2 with regard to the respondent no.2 staying separate. On the one hand, according to the respondent no.2, she was treated cruelly. That is why she is staying separate. On the other hand, according to the revisionist, it is the respondent no.2, who herself has left her matrimonial house. The actual reason would be ascertained when parties are permitted to lead their evidence. 8. According to the respondent no.2, she is not able to maintain herself. The revisionist did not bring any record to even reveal that the respondent no.2 is, in any manner, earning for her livelihood. 9. In internal page 3, paragraph no.2 of the impugned order, the court has assessed the income of the revisionist. The impugned order was passed on 12.12.2023. The court has taken note of the prolife of the revisionist, as made on the matrimonial website, where, admittedly, the revisionist has shown his income as Rs. 25-30 Lakhs per annum. 10. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that the revisionist works in a business and gets about Rs. 3 Lakhs per month. At the stage of decision of interim maintenance application, the court has to examine the issue on the basis of the documents that are filed by the parties and also by taking into consideration the attending circumstances. That is what has been done by the court below. Having considered all the attending factors, the court had assessed the income of the revisionist as Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and granted Rs. 19,000/- per month interim maintenance to the respondent no.2. This amount of maintenance, in any manner, cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law. That is what has been done by the court below. Having considered all the attending factors, the court had assessed the income of the revisionist as Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and granted Rs. 19,000/- per month interim maintenance to the respondent no.2. This amount of maintenance, in any manner, cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law. 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. 11. The revision is dismissed in limine.