Ansar Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3617 UK

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Criminal Revision No. 502 of 2022

Ansar Ahmad                                     ........Revisionist
                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another              ........Respondents
Present:-
            Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Advocate for the revisionist.
            Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.


                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge is made in this revision to the

judgment and order dated 18.06.2022, passed in Misc.

Criminal Case No. 85 of 2019, Smt. Parbeen Bee vs. Ansar

Ahmad, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Khatima,

District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). By it, the

revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month

to the respondent no. 1 ("the wife") as maintenance.

2. The case is based on an application filed under

Section125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the

respondent no.2. According to it, she and the revisionist

were married on 24.04.2018. But, after the marriage, the

wife was harassed and tortured for and in connection with

demand of dowry. Subsequently, she started separately.

She is not able to maintain herself whereas the revisionist is

a man of means and he earns Rs. 25,000/- per month. The

revisionist filed objections to it. He denied the allegations of

harassment and torture. According to him, the wife is able

to maintain herself, whereas the financial condition of the

revisionist is not good.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit

that the revisionist is a labourer; he is not on regular

occupation; he is not able to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as

maintenance.

5. In the cases of maintenance, generally, it

becomes little difficult to assess the actual income of a

person, who is not employed anywhere. It is the case of the

revisionist that he is a labourer. It is not the case that he is

not an able bodied person. Even a labourer, who is able

bodied may definitely give Rs. 4,000/- per month

maintenance to his wife. This is what the court below has

done. There appears to be no illegality, error or impropriety

in the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the

revision deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage

itself.

6. The criminal revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.11.2022 Avneet/