Sunil Kumar Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3504 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 652 of 2022

Sunil Kumar Chauhan                           ...........Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another             ......... Respondents


Mr. Devang Dobhal, 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 dated 26.07.2022, passed in Misc. Criminal Case

No.14 of 2021, Smt. Ranjita and another vs. Sunil Singh

Chauhan, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Tehri

Garhwal (for short, "the recovery case"). By it, an

application filed by the mother of the respondent no.2,

seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter has

been decided. The respondent no.2, the daughter has

been awarded `7,500/- per month maintenance from the

date of filing of the application. The mother of the

respondent no.2 i.e. the wife of the revisionist has been

denied maintenance.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The basis of the case is an application for

maintenance, filed under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") by the

wife of the revisionist seeking maintenance for herself

and her daughter the respondent no.2. According to it,

the revisionist and the mother of the respondent no.2

were married on 15.01.2008 and since thereafter, the

wife of the revisionist was tortured in her in-laws' house,

due to which, she under compulsion, started staying

separately with the respondent no.2. According to the

wife of the revisionist, she is working on contract basis.

The revisionist runs a shop, he has certain shops from

which he is receiving rent; he has a car also, he is a man

of means. The application was objected to. By the

impugned order, the application under Section 125 of

the Code had been partly allowed, the wife of the

revisionist has been denied maintenance on the ground

that she is able to maintain herself, but the daughter of

the parties, who is respondent no.2, has been granted

`7,500/- per month maintenance. It is impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that it is the responsibility of both, the revisionist

and his wife to maintain their daughter; the revisionist

alone cannot be held responsible for it; the revisionist is

not a man of such means, who could pay `7,500/- per

month. At the end of his arguments, learned counsel for

the revisionist would submit that during the pendency of

the case also, the revisionist has been paying interim

maintenance to the respondent no.2, the daughter, but

it has not been adjusted by the impugned judgment and

order.

5. This is a revision, the scope is quite limited

to the extent of examining legality, propriety and

correctness of the impugned judgment and order.

6. It is not in dispute that the revisionist is

under obligation to maintain her minor daughter. It is

also admitted that the minor daughter, who is the

respondent no.2, is not able to maintain herself. It is

admitted that the revisionist runs a shop. He has stated

in his examination that he had taken a shop on rent

from his father @ `1,000/- per month. He also admitted

that he is the only son of his father. The sister of the

revisionist in her cross-examination has stated that the

revisionist also runs taxi.

7. The court below fixed the income of the

revisions as `20,000/- per month. This Court does not

see any reason to make any interference in it.

Undoubtedly, for the want of any document, as such,

any estimation could definitely remain in the realm of

estimation, which is arrived at on keeping in view all the

attending factors. In the instant case, the court below

has taken into consideration the fact that the revisionist

runs a shop, he also runs taxi and thereafter, his income

has been assessed. This assessment cannot be said to

incorrect, improper or illegal. There is no other issue

that has been made. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that there is no merit in the revision and it deserves to

be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. However, it has also been argued that the

revisionist had been paying interim maintenance to his

daughter during the pendency of the case. It definitely

would be adjusted. The amount which had been paid by

the revisionist to the respondent no.2, as interim

maintenance shall be adjusted towards the amount

which is due under the impugned judgment and order.

9. With the above observation, the revision is

dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.11.2022 Sanjay