Uttarakhand High Court
Ankush Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 598 of 2022
Ankush Chauhan ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal,
Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vaibhav Singh
Chauhan, Advocate for the private respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order of interim maintenance dated 12.09.2022,
passed in Case No. 166 of 2021, Smt. Anshul Chauhan
and another vs. Ankush Chauhan, by the court of
Family Judge, Haridwar ("the case"). By the impugned
order, an application filed for interim maintenance by
the respondent no.2 for herself and her minor daughter,
the respondent no.3, has been allowed and the
revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- per
month as interim maintenance..
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist
would submit that the monthly income of the revisionist
is not more than Rs. 35,000/- total; he is not in a
position to pay interim maintenance. The revisionist had
filed an affidavit pursuant to the judgment in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, in
which he has categorically deposed that he is jobless; he
has very few means to maintain his family; he is staying
in a rental house, but that has not been taken into note
by the court below. The court below only relied on the
statement and the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2.
4. Facts need not be recapitulated. The case
is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the respondent
no.2 for seeking maintenance for herself and her
daughter, the respondent no.3. In the case, an
application for interim maintenance was allowed.
5. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that
after marriage, she was harassed for demand of
additional dowry; she has no means to maintain herself;
the revisionist is a man of means.
6. In fact, the court below had very less to
decide in this case, because in her application seeking
maintenance, in paragraph 10, the respondent no.2 has
stated that the revisionist works as an engineer and
earns Rs. 90,000/- per month. In addition to it, he also
earns about Rs. 20,000/- from his agricultural land and
ancestral house. While replying, the revisionist, in Para
9 accepted the contents of Para 10 of the application of
the respondent no.2, and it has been accepted as a
matter of fact. The impugned order is based on
admission. It does not warrant any interference.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
there is no reason to make any interference. The revision
has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage
of admission itself.
8. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.10.2022
Ravi Bisht
