Sandeep Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2765 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 490 of 2022


Sandeep Sharma                                       ....Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                  ..... Respondents


Ms. Rajni Rangwal, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Prabha Naithani,
Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.



                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the order of interim maintenance dated 28.07.2022,

passed in Criminal Case No. 131 of 2021, Smt. Rekha

Sharma and another Vs. Sandeep Sharma, by the

Family Court, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun ("the

case"). By the impugned order, the revisionist was

directed to pay Rs. 15,000/-, in total, as maintenance to

the respondent nos.2 and 3, who are his wife and his

daughter, respectively (Rs. 8,000/- to the wife and Rs.

7,000/- to the daughter).

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the amount of interim maintenance is

excessive; the revisionist works as a harmonium player

in Jagran Mandli; he earns about Rs. 6,000/- per

month.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred

to the income tax return of the revisionist, which is

Annexure 4. According to the learned counsel for the

revisionist, the total income for the assessment year

2022-23 of the revisionist was Rs. 4,78,650/-; he has

other liabilities also.

5. In fact, it appears that the income tax

return was not produced before the court below at the

time of disposal of the interim application. In his

objections, it is the case of the revisionist that he works

in a Jagran Mandli and hardly earns Rs. 6,000/- per

month, but on behalf of the revisionist, learned counsel

for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the income

tax return of the revisionist to argue that is income, for

the assessment year 2022-2023 is Rs. 4,78,650/-. It

means, per month income of the revisionist is about Rs.

40,000/-. It is much more that what is told by the

revisionist in his objections filed in the case. The court

below has awarded Rs. 8,000/- to the wife and Rs.

7,000/- to the daughter of the revisionist.

6. On being asked, learned counsel for the

revisionist would tell the Court that the daughter of the

revisionist is 12 years of age. If a person earns

Rs.40,000/- per month and is directed to pay Rs.

15,000/- per month to his wife and his daughter as

interim maintenance, it cannot be said to be excessive.

7. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that the amount of maintenance awarded to the

revisionist does not warrant any interference.

Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

8. The revision is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 31.08.2022 Ravi Bisht