Ankit Kumar vs Smt. Preeti Kataria
2022 Latest Caselaw 2193 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2022


Ankit Kumar                                         ....Revisionist

                                  Vs.

Smt. Preeti Kataria                               ..... Respondent


Presents:-
Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the revisionist.



                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the order of interim maintenance dated 27.04.2022,

passed in Criminal Case No. 190 of 2021, Smt. Preeti Vs.

Ankit, by the Family Court, District-Haridwar ("the

case"). By the impugned order, the revisionist has been

directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month interim

maintenance to the respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. The record reveals that the respondent filed

an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") seeking maintenance from

the revisionist, which is the basis of the case. In the

case, an application for interim maintenance was filed.

Having considered the submission, by the impugned

order, the revisionist has been directed to pay interim

maintenance, as stated hereinbefore.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the

revisionist would raise two points as hereunder:-

(i) The respondent has been living in

adultery, which is established by the

compromise entered between the

parties on 30.01.2019, a copy of

which is filed along with the

Annexure 4. Therefore, it is argued

that, in view of Section 125(5) of the

Code, the respondent is even not

entitled for maintenance, and;

(ii) The amount of interim maintenance

is excessive.

5. In his objections, filed against the interim

maintenance application also, the revisionist, in Para 14

onwards, averred that the respondent was in

relationship with a boy prior to marriage with the

revisionist and she continued with her relationship even

thereafter. It is also argued on behalf of the revisionist

that, in fact, after compromise also, the respondent was

in relationship with her friend. Subsequently, when

some eventuality took place, she also filed an FIR

against the person with whom she had had relationship.

6.            Section       125(5)      of   the   Code       is   as

hereunder:-

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-- (1)....

(2).....

(3).....

(4).....

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section in living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order."

7. A bare perusal of the sub-Section (5)

reveals that, in fact, such woman is not entitled to

maintenance from her husband, who is living in

adultery.

8. It is true that, according to the

compromise, which is filed by the revisionist, the

respondent agreed that she would not keep relationship

with any third person. Importantly, this compromise was

allegedly executed on 30.01.2019. But along with

Annexure 4 also, the revisionist had filed FIR No.209 of

2019, lodged under Sections 3(1)(W)(ii) Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

376 (2)(D), 504 IPC by the respondent herself. This

report is lodged against the same person, with whom,

according to the revisionist, the respondent is in

relationship. Does not this FIR rebut the allegations of

adulterous conduct of the respondent? It is so because

the respondent herself had filed FIR of rape and other

offences against such person.

9. It is recorded in the impugned order by the

court below that the allegations levelled by the parties

against each other would be examined after evidence.

Therefore, at this stage, this Court does not see any

reason that this compromise, which allegedly took place

between the parties on 30.01.2019, may deny interim

maintenance to the respondent.

10. Insofar as the amount of maintenance is

concerned, the court below has considered the affidavits

filed by the revisionist and observed that the income of

the revisionist is about Rs. 15,000/-. This is totally

guess work because there is no documents filed by the

revisionist himself about his income.

11. The fact remains that the revisionist,

despite having Bank Account, as stated by himself in his

affidavit in column F(7) did not file the bank statement.

Why the revisionist withheld his bank statements? This

Court leaves to comment on it.

12. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that there is no substance in this

revision and it is devoid of merits. The impugned order is

in accordance with law. It does not warrant any

interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

13. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.07.2022 Ravi Bisht