Uttarakhand High Court
Anil Kumar Arya vs Hemlata And Another on 23 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 445 of 2022
Anil Kumar Arya ..........Revisionist
Vs.
Hemlata and another ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the revisionist.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
order dated 25.05.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.26 of
2021, Smt. Hemlata and another vs. Anil Kumar Arya,
passed by the court of Judge, Family Court, Tehri
Garhwal (for short, "the case"). By the impugned order,
the revisionist has been directed to pay `5,000/- per
month to the respondent no.1 and `2,000/- per month to
the respondent no.2, who are wife and son of the
revisionist respectively, as an interim maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and
perused the record.
3. Facts are in a very short compass. It appears
that the respondent no.1 filed an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, "the Code") seeking maintenance from the
revisionist. According to the respondent no.1, after
marriage she was harassed, taunted and tortured for the
demand of additional dowry. On 01.03.2020, she was
abused and assaulted by the revisionist, she left her
matrimonial house and started staying with her maternal
uncle. At that time, according to the respondent no.1, the
revisionist lodged a missing report of her.
4. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that she is
not able to maintain herself whereas, the revisionist is a
Lecturer, who is getting `90,000/- per month salary.
5. These allegations have been denied by the
revisionist. According to him, the respondent no.1 was in
the habit of leaving the house along with the minor child.
On 01.03.2020, she left the house without informing him,
therefore, missing report was lodged. The revisionist has
also filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act") for restitution of conjugal
rights. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed an
application under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the
Domestic Violence Act"), in which, the respondent no.1
was granted `5,000/- per month and the respondent no.2
was granted `3,000/- per month as maintenance.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that under the provisions of the Domestic Violence
Act, the respondents had already been granted
maintenance. It is argued that if the respondents were not
satisfied with the amount that has been granted to them
in the proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic
Violence Act, they would have appealed against the order,
which was not done.
6. It is argued that once application under Section
9 of the Act was moved by the revisionist, it is thereafter,
only that application under the provisions of the Domestic
Violence Act was made by the respondent no.1.
7. On the question of salary, it is argued on behalf
of the revisionist that he gets `66,000/- per month salary
after deduction. He has to maintain his mother and wife.
He has taken some loans, as well.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also
submit that, in fact, the respondent no.1 had concealed
the factum of the maintenance, which, she was getting
under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act in her
affidavit, which was filed pursuant to the judgment in the
case Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Therefore, it is
argued that she is not entitled for maintenance.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also
submit that if the wife is called in this proceeding,
perhaps the parties may amicably settle the dispute.
10. The order impugned is an order granting
interim maintenance. It is a revision, the scope is much
restricted to the extent of examining the correctness,
legality and propriety of impugned judgment and order.
The Court puts a question to the learned counsel for the
revisionist i.e. whether an application under Section 125
of the Code is not maintainable after grant of monetary
relief under the Domestic Violence Act? Learned counsel
for the revisionist fairly concedes that such application is
maintainable.
11. In so far as concealment of the facts in an
affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 is concerned, the
court below may take action as permissible under law and
that will not be a ground to interfere in an impugned
order. In so far as filing of a petition under Section 9 of
the Act is concerned, it has less relevance in so far as the
legality of the impugned order is concerned.
12. Fact remains that according to the respondent
no.1, she was beaten up on 01.03.2020 and the fact also
remains that on the same date, the revisionist filed a
missing report. Perhaps these reasons would be
discussed in detail, while the application under Section
125 of the Code would find final disposal.
13. In the impugned order at para 26, the court
has taken note of the dependency of the other family
members of the revisionist and had noted that, in fact,
the father of the revisionist is a retired official, who gets
pension and his sister is not minor. Having considered all
these facts, the court granted total `7,000/- per month
interim maintenance to the respondents. It has been so
done keeping in view the fact that the respondents are
already getting `8,000/- per month in a proceeding under
the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The Court
does not want to observe that if a person gets `66,000/-
per month and none is dependent on him, how is
`15,000/- per month interim maintenance is adequate for
his wife and child, perhaps when the matter gets final
disposal this aspect may be agitated.
14. Having considered the submissions, this Court
is of the view that there is no reason to interfere in this
revision and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
15. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
23.08.2022
Sanjay
