Uttarakhand High Court
Richa Gautam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 27 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 721 of 2019
Richa Gautam ...... Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Krishan Kumar Verma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Pratibha Naithani, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the judgment and order dated 16.10.2019, passed in
Case No.250 of 2018, Smt. Richa Gautam Vs. Aman
Kakkar, in the court of Family Judge, Dehradun. By it,
an application fined under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") by the
revisionist has been rejected.
2. The revisionist filed an application under
Section 125 of the Code seeking maintenance. In her
application for maintenance, at Para 10, the revisionist
had stated that she has no means to maintain herself.
She has no movable or immovable property and her
financial condition is not good.
3. In his objections, the private respondent in
Para 26 has stated that, in fact, the revisionist works
UDWDP-2 Office and her take home salary is Rs.
20,000/-. The private respondent tried to seek
information from UDWDP-2 Office but it was not given
to the private respondent on the ground that the
revisionist had denied to give such information under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the Act").
4. The application of the revisionist under
Section 125 of the Code has been rejected on the
ground that the revisionist had already been working
and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. In Para 19 of the
impugned judgment, the Court has recorded that
based on analysis, it shall be presumed that the
revisionist is working in the Society of People's for
Development, Dehradun and getting Rs. 20,000/- per
month. The revisionist had not approached the court
with clean hands. Therefore, she is not entitled to get
maintenance.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist was not working at any
place. She had been working for a while, which she
had left in the year 2019. It is submitted that such
presumptions could not have been raised with regard
to income of the revisionist.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
private respondent would submit that the revisionist
had been working in the UDWDP-2 office till 2019 as
admitted by her in her examination in chief affidavit,
but in her application under Section 125 of the Code,
she had denied of having any means to maintain
herself. Therefore, it is argued that the private
respondent sought information under the Act but it
could not be given to the private respondent because
the revisionist had directed the department not to
furnish such information.
8. In order to grant or refuse maintenance
under Section 125 of the Code, the Court has, inter
alia, to record finding on the financial condition of the
parties. A wife, who is unable to maintain herself may
get maintenance if other conditions given under that
Sections are fulfilled. At the same time, resources of
husband are also to be examined and financial
responsibilities, liabilities of the parties are weighed,
keeping in view their societal status, way of living, etc.
A document was filed by the private respondent to
show that, in fact, he was denied information about
the salary of the revisionist because the revisionist had
denied department to give such information.
9. It is also true that in her application under
Section 125 of the Code, the revisionist had stated that
she is not able to maintain herself and it is also true
that in her examination in chief affidavit, she has
stated that she worked with some organization till
March 2019 and was getting Rs. 20,000/- as salary.
But can it make the Court to draw a conclusion that
on 16.10.2019 also the revisionist was working with
some organization and was able to maintain herself.
Perhaps such conclusion cannot be drawn.
10. In her affidavit given in examination in chief
at Para 17, the revisionist has stated that she was
working with the organization till March, 2019 and
was getting some month Rs. 5,000/-, some month Rs.
4,000/- and some month Rs. 6,000/-. The revisionist
was confronted in her cross-examination about her
source of income. She has categorically stated that on
that date, her contract had already been over. She was
not working on the date of her cross-examination,
which was recorded on 27.08.2019. In her cross-
examination, at Page 4, second paragraph, the
revisionist categorically stated that she had worked for
some period to meet her expenses. But the period of
contract is already over.
11. This is revision. The scope is quite limited.
To the extent of examining correctness, legality and
proprietary of the impugned judgment and order. The
provision of Section 125 of the Code are made to help
a woman in need of money to maintain herself, to
avoid her from vagrancy and destitute. If a wife works
for a while, it cannot be said that she is able to
maintain herself. Her nature of employment, her
source of income has to be taken into consideration.
The law does not expect a wife to sit idle while seeking
maintenance. She may work to try to maintain herself.
She may work to get herself occupied.
12. In the instant case, the revisionist has
categorically stated that she worked with the
organization till March, 2019 and was earning money
from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. These
aspects ought to have been considered by the court
below, which could not invite the attention of the court
while passing the impugned judgment. The court drew
an inference as to why the revisionist denied from
providing her information under the Act.
13. This Court is of the view that, in fact,
material evidence has not been examined and
irrelevant material has been taken into consideration
by the court below while passing the impugned
judgment and order. Therefore, impugned judgment
and order deserves to be set aside and the revision
allowed.
14. The revision is allowed. Impugned judgment
and order is set aside accordingly.
15. The court below is directed to give an
opportunity of hearing to the parties including
opportunity to adduce any evidence that the parties
may like to adduce and thereafter, decide the matter
afresh. Meanwhile, the private respondent shall
continue paying interim maintenance to the
revisionist, as ordered in the case.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.06.2022
Ravi Bisht
