Nitin Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2120 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 376 of 2022


Nitin Chauhan                                      ...... Revisionist

                                   Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                ..... Respondents


Present:   Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocates for the revisionist.
           Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe for the State.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the order of interim maintenance dated 15.06.2022,

passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 273 of 2021,

Smt. Tanu Rawat Vs. Nitin Chauhan, by the court of

Judge, Family Court, Kashipur District-Udham Singh

Nagar("the case"). By the impugned order, the revisionist

has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as an interim

maintenance to the respondent no.2/wife.

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 not as

per law; he would submit that though the revisionist

gets a salary Rs.60,000/- per month, but he pays

Rs.40,000/- as instalment of a flat, which he has

purchased prior to his marriage; his parents are

dependent on him.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the

revisionist that the respondent no.2 works in an Army

Public School and gets a salary of Rs.20,000/- per

month. This fact was not considered by the court below

while passing the impugned judgment. He would submit

that in his affidavit, filed pursuant to the judgment in

the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC

324, the revisionist has categorically disclosed these

facts.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist admits

that the respondent no.2 in her affidavit filed pursuant

to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra), has

stated that she is a housewife and she doesn't earn

anything.

6. The Court wanted to know, as to whether

any pay certificate or any document has been filed by

the revisionist so as to falsify the affidavit given by the

respondent no.2 with regard to her income?

7. At it, learned counsel for the revisionist

would submit that no document with regard to the

salary of the respondent no.2 has been filed by the

revisionist. But, he would submit that the revisionist

has stated about it in his affidavit. Although, he also

admits that the respondent no.2 has also stated about it

in his affidavit.

8. The impugned order is just an interim

maintenance order. The order has to attain finality, after

parties adduce evidence. The private respondent, in her

affidavit filed pursuant to the judgment in the case of

Rajnesh (supra) has stated that she is a housewife and

does not earn anything. Admittedly, there is no

document, which may show that the respondent no.2 is

earning anything from any school.

9. In view of it, this Court does not see any

reason to make any interference. The revision has no

merit and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

10. The revision is dismissed in limine.

11. Any observation, which has been made in

this order, shall have no bearing at the time of final

adjudication of the matter, because definitely at final

stage there would be more evidence, which may help the

Court to arrive at a just conclusion with regard to the

amount of maintenance, if any.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.07.2022 Ravi Bisht