Dharmendra Singh Sajwan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3650 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 691 of 2022


Dharmendra Singh Sajwan                      ...........Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                 ..... Respondents


Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the
State.



                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

judgment and order dated 27.09.2022, passed in

Criminal Case No. 444 of 2019, Smt. Sarita Sajwan vs.

Dharmendra Singh Sajwan, by the court of Additional

Judge, Family Court Dehradun, District Dehradun (for

short, "the case"). By it, an application for interim

maintenance filed by the respondent no.2 has been

allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay

`2,500/- per month to the respondent no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It appears that the respondent no.2 ("the

wife") filed an application seeking maintenance from the

revisionist, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), which is basis of

the case. According to the wife, she and the revisionist

were married on 05.05.2005, but after marriage, the

revisionist demanded money from her, beaten her and

harassed her. Thereafter, the wife started staying

separate. In between, there has been some settlement

also, but still according to the wife, the revisionist

continued harassing her, threatened her. She has no

means to survive whereas, the revisionist is a retired

army personnel.

4. The application has been objected to by the

revisionist. The allegation as levelled were rebutted.

According to the revisionist, in fact, the conduct of the

wife was cruel. In his objections, the revisionist has

admitted that the parties have some dispute, there were

some settlement between them, the cruelty by wife was

continued, not only this, the revisionist has also levelled

allegations against the wife that she had extra-marital

relations. She has been living in adultery. It is in this

case that an application for interim maintenance has

been filed, which was allowed. It is impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the wife is staying separate without any

sufficient cause; she has been cruel to the revisionist;

the revisionist is a retired army personnel; he has

liabilities and responsibilities; he may pay the interim

maintenance from the date of order, but asking him to

pay interim maintenance from the date of application is

beyond his capacity.

6. 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. The impugned order is an order passed for

interim maintenance. It has yet not been finally decided.

7. There are cross-allegations with regard to the

wife staying separate. The wife says that it is the

revisionist and his family members who, tortured and

harassed her whereas, according to the revisionist, it is

the wife, who was cruel towards him, not only this, there

are allegations of extra-marital relationship also. These

issues will find determination when parties adduce

evidence.

8. The revisionist is an army personnel.

According to him, his parents and daughter are

dependent on him. The court below has taken into

consideration all these facts and noted that the monthly

pension of the revisionist is `22,055/- per month. The

amount of maintenance is `2,500/- per month. The wife

had filed application for maintenance long back. She

cannot be divested from getting interim maintenance

from the date of the application.

9. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, this

Court is of the view that the court below has not

committed any error, illegality or propriety by passing

the impugned order. There is no reason which may

warrant any interference in the impugned order.

Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

10. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.11.2022 Sanjay