Uttarakhand High Court
Sahil Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2022
With
Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2022
Sahil Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Mitra Bhaskar, Advocate for the private
respondents.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The revisionist proposes to challenge the order
dated 24.03.2022 passed in Case No. 236 of 2021, Smt.
Himani and Another Vs. Sahil Gupta, by the court of Family
Judge, Haridwar ("the case").
2. It is delayed. A Delay Condonation Application has
been filed. There is 10 days delay in filing the revision.
According to the delay condonation application, after the
impugned order, the parties tried to amicably settle the
dispute and when it failed, the revision is preferred.
3. Having heard, this Court is of the view that delay
in filing the revision may be condoned.
4. Delay condonation application IA No.1 of 2022 is
allowed.
5. Delay condoned.
6. Admit the revision.
7. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, the wife and the
daughter of the revisionist respectively are represented.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
9. It appears that the respondent no.2, the wife, filed
an application seeking maintenance from the revisionist ,
which is the basis of the case. In the case, an application for
interim maintenance was filed, which has been allowed by
the impugned order and the revisionist has been directed to
pay Rs. 35,000/- to his wife, the respondent no.2 and Rs.
15,000/- per month to his daughter, the respondent no.2,
per month.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the income of the revisionist is not proved; there is no
record to it and the order has been passed based on
presumption.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 & 3 would submit that that the revisionist
is a man of means; he has 5 firms in his name connected to
GST; he is an income tax payee, but he has concealed the
facts.
12. This is a revision. The scope is much restricted to
the extent of examining the correctness, legality and
propriety of the impugned order. Evidence at this stage
cannot be appreciated. In fact, otherwise also, the impugned
order has been passed at the stage of interim maintenance.
Both the parties have filed affidavits pursuant to the
judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another
(2021) 2 SCC 324. In her affidavit, the wife writes that the
revisionist is a man of means. He also runs the account of
the wife. There are three firms in his name. The monthly
income of the revisionist is about Rs. 4 lakh per month.
13. On the other hand, the revisionist, in his affidavit,
filed pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh
(supra), did not disclose the details of his bank accounts. At
one stage, the revisionist has stated that his parents are
unwell, but at the other stage, he would submit that he runs
business with his father in a partnership and earns Rs.
25,000/- per month. Fact remains that the revisionist did
not disclose of the firms of which he is a partner. He has also
not submitted his bank accounts. He has, in fact, concealed
all this.
14. Categorically, the wife has stated that the
revisionist runs firms. The revisionist could have easily
controverted to it, but he did not do so. In the impugned
order, the court below has considered all these aspects.
15. In every case of maintenance, when there is no
document with regard to the income of the parties, the court
arrived at a conclusion about income and it is to a certain
extent a kind of estimation based on the attending factors
and the materials placed before the court. This is what has
been done by the court below in the instant case. Although,
the wife of the revisionist has stated that the revisionist
earns Rs. 4 lakh per month but the court, having considered
the material facts concluded that the monthly income of the
revisionist would be Rs. 1,50,000/-. The revisionist cannot
say that it is a presumption. It is based on the material
placed before the court. The revisionist did not help the court
below to arrive at a conclusion. In fact, the court below could
have insisted the revisionist to file a complete affidavit,
because otherwise, concealing or giving false information the
revisionist could have been proceeded against as per law.
16. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no merit in this revision and it deserves to be
dismissed.
17. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.08.2022
Ravi Bisht
