Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 402 (UTT)

Sanjay Pokhriyal v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-11

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this revision is made to an order dated 28.04.2023, passed in Case No. 82 of 2021, Smt. Kavita Balodhi and others Vs. Sri Sanjay Pokhriyal, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month each, as interim maintenance to the respondent nos, 2 and 3 (Total Rs.24,000/- per month, as interim maintenance). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) by the respondent no.2 seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, respondent no.3. According to the respondent no.2, the revisionist and the respondent were married on 01.06.2019. But after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in connection with demand of dowry. She was ill-treated and beaten up on multiple occasions. Since 02.11.2020, the respondent no.2 is has been staying in her father’s house. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist gets Rs.80,000/- salary and gets Rs.30,000/- per month, as rent. The respondent no.2 sought Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance. 4. In the case, an application for interim maintenance has also been filed. 5. The revisionist objected to the application for interim maintenance, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent no.2 has never harassed and tortured in her matrimonial house. Instead, it is the case of the revisionist that the respondent 2, compelled the revisionist to stay away from his family and she would leave her matrimonial house without any reason and stayed with her father. She did not take care of his family members. 6. According to the revisionist, the respondent no.2 is an educated woman and gets Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- by teaching and tuition. The revisionist also denied that his monthly income is Rs.80,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the income of the revisionist has been wrongly assessed. It is argued that the revisionist did work in the Financial Year 2022-23, but thereafter, he was unemployed and on the date, when order was passed, he was not earning as has been assessed by the court. It is also argued that the respondent no.2 has been staying separate without any reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is argued that the revisionist did work in the Financial Year 2022-23, but thereafter, he was unemployed and on the date, when order was passed, he was not earning as has been assessed by the court. It is also argued that the respondent no.2 has been staying separate without any reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is also argued that there is no criminal case lodged by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist even today. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that the income of the revisionist is more than Rs.80,000/- per month that is what has been assessed by the court in the impugned order. He would submit that the respondent no.2 has been staying separate without any reason. She has always been ready and willing to stay with the revisionist. But, it is the revisionist, who compelled her to stay separate. 9. The impugned order is an order awarding interim maintenance. It has yet not decided the rights of the parties finally. There are cross versions with regard to the respondent no.2 staying separate. On the one hand, according to the respondent no.2, she has been ill treated in the house of the revisionist, therefore, she is staying separate with her parents. On the other hand, according to the revisionist, it is the respondent no.2, who had created ruckus in the house; who compelled the revisionist to stay away from his family. She did not take care of the old aged mother of the revisionist and had left the matrimonial home without any reason. 10. Once the parties are permitted to adduce evidence, perhaps these reasons may finally be determined. 11. At this stage, for the purpose of grant of interim maintenance, it cannot be concluded that the respondent no.2 is staying separate without any reason. 12. Insofar as, the income of the revisionist is concerned, the impugned order makes great discussion in para 7. On 31.01.2023 and 28.02.2023, the salary that has been deposited in the account of the revisionist has been taken into consideration. Apart from it, the court has also taken into consideration, the loan and other liability of the revisionist. This Court does not find any error, which may warrant any interference with the impugned order. 13. On 31.01.2023 and 28.02.2023, the salary that has been deposited in the account of the revisionist has been taken into consideration. Apart from it, the court has also taken into consideration, the loan and other liability of the revisionist. This Court does not find any error, which may warrant any interference with the impugned order. 13. Therefore, having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 14. The revision is dismissed accordingly.