Uttarakhand High Court
Abhishek Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 14 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 687 of 2022
Abhishek Sharma ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ........ Respondents
Mr. Kshitij Sah and Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocates 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 06.09.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.109
of 2022, Smt. Shubhangi Sharma vs. Abhishek Sharma,
by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar
(for short, "the case"). By it, an application for interim
maintenance filed by the respondent has been allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, "the Code") by the respondent no.2 ("the
wife") seeking maintenance from the revisionist.
4. In the case an application for interim
maintenance has been filed. It has been the case of the
wife of the revisionist that she has been harassed and
tortured by the revisionist under intoxication; he had
extra-marital relations with other women; because of the
harassment, the wife started living separate; she is not
able to maintain herself whereas, the monthly income of
the revisionist is `50,50,000/-. The revisionist objected
to the application. After hearing the parties, by the
impugned order, the interim maintenance application
has been allowed and the revisionist had been directed
to pay `16,000/- per month as an interim maintenance
to his wife.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the entries in the passbook of the
revisionist, which have been taken into consideration by
the court below, while assessing the income of the
revisionist, is not, in fact, the money which belonged to
the revisionist.
6. It is submitted that, in fact, the revisionist
is merely a Supervisor, who gets `9,000/- per month
salary. The money was deposited in his account, so that,
he may make cash payment to other workers in case of
exigency.
7. It is also argued that even if, it is assumed
that the revisionist has a hotel and which is on lease, he
could not have received the rent as shown in the pass-
book. In such case, he could have received a lump sum
money as a rent.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that if notices are issued to the wife and she
appears in this Court, perhaps the parties may arrive at
amicable settlement.
9. This is a revision, the scope is quite limited to
the extent of examining legality, propriety and
correctness of the impugned judgment and order.
Appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of revision
unless the finding is perverse i.e. without any weight of
evidence. Evidence is also appreciated in the cases
where material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material
is considered while passing the impugned judgment and
order.
10. The relationship between the parties is not
in dispute. The application for maintenance is pending.
The revisionist claimed that he gets `9,000/- per month
salary. The court below has taken note of various
amounts deposited in the account of the revisionist on
different occasions, for instance in the month of
December, 2020 the court noted that in the account of
the revisionist `58,000/- was deposited and posed a
question that how a person, who gets `9,000/- per
month salary could deposit `58,000/- in his account?
Similarly, in the month of July, 2022 also on different
occasions, money was deposited in the account of the
revisionist. It has also been taken note of by the court
below. It is order for interim maintenance. Definitely,
once parties adduce evidence, the court may determine
the means and financial resources of the parties and
decide the case finally.
12. In so far as the efforts for conciliation is
concerned, this is definitely a welcome move. But, then
the parties are still in litigation in the case. Efforts for
mediation may be made before the court below, as well.
For this reason, notices may not be issued. It would be
definitely abuse of process of law.
13. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that the opinion which the court below has made cannot
be faulted with. It cannot be said that the opinion
formed was wrong, illegal or improper. Therefore, there
is no reason to make any interference in the impugned
judgments and orders. Accordingly, the revision deserves
to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
14. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.11.2022
Sanjay
