Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 359 (UTT)

Vartika v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-20

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 21.10.2022, passed in Case No. 39 of 2022, Smt. Vartika and Another Vs. Jyoti Prakash, by the court of Family Judge, Laksar, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist no. 2 has been granted Rs.1000/-, per month, as maintenance, by the respondent no. 2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The revisionist no. 1 filed an application, seeking maintenance from the respondent no. 2, on the ground that after marriage on 07.10.2013, the respondent no. 2 and his family members were not happy with the dowry and they would harass and torture the revisionist no. 1. Efforts for reconciliation were made, but they did not yield any result, and, finally, according to the revisionist no. 1, she was expelled from her matrimonial house on 03.04.2022. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the respondent no. 2 works in a private sector and earns about Rs. 80,000/- per month. With these averments, the revisionist no. 1 demanded Rs. 25,000/- for both the revisionists, which is the basis of the case. 4. In the case, an application for interim maintenance was also filed. 5. The respondent no. 2 filed his objections against the interim maintenance application. According to him, the revisionist no. 1 had established illicit relations with some other person. When the respondent no. 2 objected to it, she lodged false police report against the respondent no. 2 and on 03.04.2022, she, on her own, left her matrimonial home. 6. It has been the case of the respondent no. 2 that ever any demand of dowry was not made. The revisionist no. 1 was never harassed and tortured for that purpose. 7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the court held that since there was a land recorded in the name of the revisionist no. 1, which she concealed, she is not entitled to maintenance, because she had not come to the court with clean hands. The court granted Rs. 1,000/- per month maintenance to the revisionist no. 2, the child of the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist no. 1 never knew that some property has been recorded in her name. It is argued that the amount of maintenance, awarded to the child, is much less. 9. The court granted Rs. 1,000/- per month maintenance to the revisionist no. 2, the child of the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist no. 1 never knew that some property has been recorded in her name. It is argued that the amount of maintenance, awarded to the child, is much less. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would submit that the revisionist no. 1 had concealed her assets, and, in fact, never accepted it, despite in objections, these facts having been brought on surface by the respondent no. 2. She would submit that though the child may get maintenance from the respondent no. 2. 10. The Court asked from learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as to what would be the amount of maintenance that the respondent no. 2 proposes to give his child, the revisionist no. 2? She would submit that Rs. 4,000/- per month interim maintenance may be awarded to the revisionist no. 2. 11. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the revision may be decided by modifying the order to the effect that the revisionist no. 2 may get Rs. 4,000/- per month, as interim maintenance. 12. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned counsel for the parties. 13. The respondent no. 2 shall pay Rs. 4,000/- per month, as interim maintenance, to his son, the revisionist no. 2. 14. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 15. In view, thereof, the revision stands disposed of.