Uttarakhand High Court
Anoop Prakash Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2022
Anoop Prakash Bhatt ...... Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Tajhar Qayyum and Mr. Ganesh Chand Sharma, Advocates
for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. assisted by 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 dated 08.04.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.
11 of 2022, Smt. Pamita Vs. Anoop Prakash Bhatt, by
the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun.
By the impugned order, an application for interim
maintenance, filed by the respondent no.2 ("the
applicant") has been allowed and the revisionist has
been directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to her as
interim maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has
raised particularly two points as follows:
(i) the applicant had concealed her profession
in an affidavit, which she filed in support of her
application under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). She is a
registered Pharmacist. But she has disclosed her
profession as a house maker. It is argued that the
applicant is registered with the Uttarakhand
Pharmacy Council in the year 2007 and she got
her registration renewed twice. Reference has
been made to annexure No. 3 & 5 to the revision,
and;
(ii) In the impugned order, this fact has not
been considered that the applicant twice renewed
her registration with the Uttarakhand Pharmacy
Council.
4. It appears that the applicant filed an
application under Section 125 of the Code seeking
maintenance from the revisionist. During pendency of
the application, she also moved an application for the
interim maintenance, which has been allowed by the
impugned order.
5. In the impugned order, the factum of the
applicant, having been registered with the Uttarakhand
Pharmacy Counsel, has been discussed. It is recorded
that in the year 2018, the applicant was married. On a
matrimonial site also she disclosed herself as an
unemployed. The court also observed that had the
applicant been working as a pharmacist, this fact would
have come to the notice of the applicant. In fact, during
the course of argument, the Court asked learned counsel
for the revisionist as to whether the applicant had ever
worked as a Pharmacist? Had the revisionist ever
noticed that the applicant is working as a Pharmacist?
In reply to it, it is submitted that in the month of April,
2018, the parties were married and in the month of July,
2018, the applicant had left the company of the
revisionist. During that period, he did not notice that
she was working as a Pharmacist.
6. The applicant is registered with the
Pharmacy Council, but according to her, she is not
working anywhere or not earning from that profession,
in any manner. According to her, she is working as a
house maker. Merely, because the applicant is registered
with the pharmacy council, it cannot be said that she is
not a house maker.
7. This is a revision where the scope is quite
limited to examine the correctness, legality and
proprietary of any impugned judgment and order, etc. In
the impugned order, the court below has discussed
these aspects of the applicant, having been registered
with the Uttarakhand Pharmacy Council, and drawn a
conclusion, which, in any manner, cannot be said to be
not in accordance with law.
8. Therefore, there is no reason to make any
interference in the matter. The impugned order is in
accordance with law. Accordingly, the revision deserves
to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
9. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.06.2022
Ravi Bisht
