Uttarakhand High Court
Prakash Chandra Behera vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 383 of 2022
Prakash Chandra Behera ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Presents:-
None turns up for the revisionist.
None turns up for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the impugned order dated 21.03.2022, passed in Case
No. 346 of 2018, Smt. Tapas Sarita Raut Vs. Sh.
Prakash Chandra Behera, by the court of Family Judge,
Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been
directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to the respondent no.2.
2. Today, when none was present for the
State, the Court requested Mr. G.S. Sandhu, the
Government Advocate, as to whether, any Government
Advocate has been appointed to assist the Court?
According to him, he has allotted the cases to the
Additional Government Advocates, but despite it, none is
present on behalf of the State.
3. It appears that the respondent no.2, the
wife of the revisionist, filed an application seeking
maintenance from the revisionist under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the basis
of the case. In that case, an application for interim
maintenance was filed. According to the respondent
no.2, she and the revisionist were married, but after
marriage, the revisionist tortured and did marpeet with
her, due to which respondent no.2 was compelled to stay
separate. The revisionist works in an organisation and
gets Rs. 55,000/- per month salary. He has agricultural
land also, whereas, the respondent no.2 is unable to
maintain herself.
4. The interim maintenance application has
been objected to by the revisionist on the ground that he
had already resigned from the company on 20.03.2018.
He works in a Gaushala and earns Rs. 1,500-1,800/-
per month. According to the revisionist, the respondent
no.2, the wife, has done some course and she is on job.
5. This revision was admitted on 18.07.2022.
On that date, reference was made to an affidavit filed by
the revisionist pursuant to the judgment in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, to
show that the revisionist had already resigned from the
establishment. It was then argued that the affidavit was
not taken into consideration while passing the impugned
order.
6. It is true that in his affidavit filed pursuant
to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra), the
revisionist has at one place stated that he had resigned,
but he has not stated his income. He did not enclose
with it his payslip, account details, etc. In the impugned
order, the court has discussed the income of the
revisionist. The Court noted that although the revisionist
has stated that he had resigned from his earlier job on
20.03.2018, but he did not file any document with
regard to it. In view of what has been discussed by the
court below, it cannot be said that the court below did
not take notice of the contention raised by the revisionist
that he had already resigned from his earlier job.
7. After examining the material on record, the
impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is
not wrong, illegal or improper. It does not warrant any
interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be
dismissed.
8. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.11.2022
Ravi Bisht
