HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 605 of 2022
Sushil Gaur ........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, Deputy Advocate General with Ms.
Mamta Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 14.07.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 122 of 2017, Asha Gaur vs. Sushil Gaur, by the court of Judge, Family Court Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal (for short, "the case"). By it, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") by the respondent no.2 ("the wife") has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay `4,000/- per month to his wife and `3,000/- per month each to both of the daughters, as maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The record reveals that the revisionist and the respondent no.2 were married on 24.10.2012. The 2 respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 125 of the Code that soon after marriage, she was harassed, tortured and beaten up in her in-laws' house. She gave birth to two children, but due to the atrocities committed on her, she had no option, but to stay separate; she has no means to survive whereas, the revisionist is a persons of means, who earns `15,000/- per month; he is a lawyer.
4. This application under Section 125 of the Code has been objected to by the revisionist on the ground that the respondent no.2 has never been harassed, tortured and taunted in her in-laws' house. The revisionist has denied all the allegations. According to him, the respondent no.2 could not adjust with the revisionist because she had much aspirations in her life. With regard to the income, it is the case of the revisionist that he hardly earns `5,000/- per month as a Junior Lawyer whereas, the respondent no.2 earns about `27,000/- per month from tuition, Yoga teaching, etc. Parties adduced evidences in the case. By the impugned judgment and order, the application filed by the respondent no.2 has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay total `10,000/- per month as maintenance (`4,000/- per month to the wife and `3,000/- per month each to the two daughters).
3
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the respondent no.2 is not entitled to maintenance; she had high aspirations in her life; she was not adjusting in her matrimonial life. In addition to it, it has also been argued that the amount of maintenance is in excessive because the revisionist is a Junior Lawyer, he does not earn more than `5,000/- in a month.
6. The impugned judgment and order reveals much. It reveals that, in fact, it was the revisionist, who had filed a suit for divorce, which was ex parte decreed. But, today a statement is given by the learned counsel for the revisionist that on an application filed by the respondent no.2, the ex parte order is set aside and that order is under challenge in this High Court.
7. The impugned judgment and order also reveals that, in fact, the revisionist married another woman, with whom also, he had some disputes. With the second wife and daughter, he settled the dispute by paying `3,30,000/-. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that when the suit for divorce was decreed ex parte and attained finality, at that stage, the revisionist performed second marriage, which also did not work.
8. This is a revision. The scope is quite limited to the extent of examining legality, propriety and correctness of the 4 impugned judgment and order. Appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of revision unless the finding is perverse i.e. without any weight of evidence.
9. The impugned judgment and order of the court below has widely considered the statements of the parties as well as the documents. The record also reveals that, in fact, the revisionist has levelled allegations of extra-marital relations on his wife. Has it been able to be substantiated? When this question is posed to the learned counsel for the revisionist, he would submit that some photographs were filed in the divorce suit, which is still pending. It is submitted that the photographs were also filed in the case.
10. In para 15 of the impugned judgment and order, the court below has observed that the photographs, as filed has not been proved by the revisionist. Having considered the evidence adduced, the court below observed that the wife had sufficient reasons to stay separate. This finding does not warrant any interference. It is based on evidence, which is in accordance with law.
11. In so far as the income is concerned, the court below has taken note of the fact that the revisionist did pay `3,30,000/- to his second wife and daughter as one-time settlement. It is admitted in the case that the revisionist has 5 been working as an Advocate since 2009-10. In cases where there are no documents with regard to the income, it is really much hard to the court to assess actual income of a person. In the instant case, based on all the attending circumstances, the court has drawn on a conclusion, which cannot be said to be perverse or not in accordance with law. For three persons (wife and two children) total 10,000/- maintenance has been awarded. By no state of imagination can it be said to be excessive.
12. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the court below has not committed any error, illegality or propriety by passing the impugned order. There is no reason which may warrant any interference in the impugned order. Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
13. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.11.2022 Sanjay