Nidhi Anand vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3814 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 717 of 2022
Nidhi Anand                                              ....Revisionist

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                      ..... Respondents


Presents:-
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.


                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the order dated 05.09.2022, passed in Case No.169 of

2020, Smt. Nidhi Anand Vs. Rishabh Nirmal, by the

court of Family Judge, Haridwar ("the case").

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. The case is based on an application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the

Code"), filed by the revisionist seeking maintenance from

the private respondent. It has been the case of the

revisionist that she and the private respondent were

married on 22.11.2017. But, after marriage, she was

harassed in her in-law's house; she was tortured for the

demand of dowry. The private respondent had

videographed the intimate moments of their married life

and had threatened the revisionist to make those videos

public. On 04.07.2019, the private respondent expelled the

revisionist from her matrimonial house.

4. It has been the case of the reivisonist that

the private respondent earns Rs. 10 Lacs per month and

it is his responsibility and obligation to maintain the

revisionist. In the case, an application for interim

maintenance has been filed, which has been objected to

by the private respondent. After hearing the parties, by

the impugned order, the application for interim

maintenance has been rejected mainly on the ground

that the revisionist is able to maintain herself.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that, in fact, the private respondent works in the

United Arab Emirates (UAE) and gets about Rs. 10 Lacs

per month salary. Although, in his affidavit, filed

pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs.

Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, he states that he

gets Rs. 30,000/- per month salary. But his passport

and visa endorsement reflects that he is a vivid traveller,

who has visited many countries. It is argued that a man,

who gets Rs. 30,000/- per month, may not be in a

position to visit so frequently. It is also argued that even

the private respondent had agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/-

per month to the revisionist, but that has also not been

considered by the court below.

6. The Court wanted to know from learned

counsel for the revisionist as to where in her application

under Section 125 of the Code or in an application for

interim maintenance, the revisionist has stated that she

is not able to maintain herself? Learned counsel for the

revisionist would submit that at least the revisionist is

entitled to maintain herself, commensurate with the

social status and life style of her husband, who is the

private respondent. The Court posed further question, as

to whether has it been averred anywhere in the

application under Section 125 of the Code or in the

application for interim maintenance or in the affidavit

filed by the revisionist in support of her application for

interim maintenance? It is not. This is one fact.

7. The court below has observed that, in fact,

the revisionist is self-employed. In her affidavit filed

pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra),

the revisionist writes that her monthly income is Rs.

40,000/- per month approximately. In the column of

expenses, she writes that her monthly expenses are

above Rs. 50,000/- per month + Rs. 47,600/- per month

instalment of Mercedes car and Rs. 21,700/- per month

instalment of Hundai Venue car. This total comes more

than Rs. 1 Lakh. The question is if the revisionist is

getting only Rs. 40,000/-, how is she spending more

than one lakh rupees? This affidavit does not reveal the

financial resources, as such, of the revisionist. The court

below had taken note of the income tax returns filed by

the revisionist in the past years. Keeping in view all

these factors, it was observed that, in fact, the

revisionist is able to maintain herself.

8. The evidence is yet to be adduced in the

case. It is true that a spouse is entitled to maintain

herself commensurate to the financial resources, social

status, life style, etc. of a husband. But, in this case, at

this stage, apparently, there is less material to record a

finding otherwise than what is recorded in the impugned

order. The court below has discussed the admissible

evidence that is available and recorded a finding, which

cannot be termed as incorrect, illegal or improper.

9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court does not find any illegality, error or impropriety in

the impugned judgment and order. This Court does not

find any reason to make any interference. Accordingly,

the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

10. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.11.2022 Ravi Bisht