Uttarakhand High Court
Suraj @ Surajbhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2019
Suraj @ Surajbhan ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Akshay
Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Challenge in this revision is made to the judgment
and order dated 08.05.2019, passed in Case No. 135 of
2015, Smt. Savita and another Vs. Suraj @ Surajbhan, by
the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee,
District Haridwar ("the case"). By the impugned judgment
and order, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") by the respondent
no.2 (the wife) for herself and her minor son, respondent
no.3 has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed
to pay Rs.5000/- to the wife and Rs.3000/- to the minor son
i.e. total Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of
the Code, seeking maintenance from the revisionist on the
ground that after marriage with the revisionist on
22.12.2012, she was harassed, tortured and beaten up by
the revisionist and his family members for and in connection
with the demand of dowry. Some specific instances of
05.09.2014, 12.03.2015 and 23.04.2015 have been narrated
in the application, on which dates, according to the wife, she
was beaten up by the revisionist.
4. It is a case of the wife that she is not able to
maintain herself and her minor son. Whereas, the revisionist
is a Constable in the Uttarakhand Police and gets salary of
Rs.40,000/- per month. The revisionist filed his objections
and denied the averments made in the application. It is
admitted by the revisionist that on 16.03.2015, his wife left
his house. The reasons are varying.
5. It is the case of the revisionist that without any
proper reason the wife is staying away from the revisionist.
With regard to the means, according to the revisionist, the
wife is able to maintain herself and her minor son. It is also
stated that the revisionist has responsibility of his old aged
parents also.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue
that the wife is staying separate without any reasonable
cause. The revisionist has also filed a petition under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act") for restitution
of conjugal rights and after that an application under Section
125 of the Code was filed by the wife.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the wife and minor
son would submit that the revisionist has concealed the
material fact that after withdrawing the petition under
Section 9 of the Act, the revisionist has filed a suit for
divorce against the wife.
8. In the revision, the scope is much restricted to the
extent of examining the correctness, legality or propriety of
any impugned judgment and order. The appreciation of
evidence is not within the domain of the revision unless the
finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence or
material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is
considered.
9. It has not even been shown by the learned counsel
for the revisionist as to what is the illegality or error in the
impugned judgment and order.
10. It is the specific case of the wife that she was
harassed, beaten up and tortured by the revisionist and
under such circumstances, she has been compelled to stay
away from her husband. In fact, in her cross examination,
the wife has stated that she would be happy to stay with the
revisionist provided she is not tortured, treated with dignity
and not insulted.
11. The Court wanted to know from the learned
counsel for the revisionist as to why the wife of the
revisionist is staying away from the revisionist and where
has he stated about it in his objection under Section 125 of
the Code? He would submit that without proper reason, the
wife is staying separate. What are the reasons as per the
revisionist? There is no reply. How could revisionist say that
the wife is staying separate without reasons, when he has no
reason to tell as to why the wife is staying separate? The wife
has given reasons as to why she is staying separate. She has
expressed her willingness to stay with the revisionist, of
course, subject to the conditions that she be treated with
dignity and honour.
12. In his cross examination, the revisionist has
admitted that, in fact, he had withdrawn the petition under
Section 9 of the Act. Now, it is being told that the revisionist
has subsequently filed a petition for divorce under Section
13 of the Act.
13. Having considered the impugned judgment and
order, this Court is of the view that the court below has
rightly concluded that the wife and her minor son are
entitled for maintenance. There is no reason to make any
interference. According, the revision deserves to be
dismissed.
14. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.08.2022
Jitendra
