Uttarakhand High Court
Shahzad Alias Munna vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 597 of 2022
Shahzad alias Munna ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Mohd. Matlub, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
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 Misc. Criminal Case No. 105 of 2021, Smt.
Rani Vs. Shahzad, by the court of Family Judge,
Vikasnagar, Dehradun ("the case"). By it, the revisionist
has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as
interim maintenance to the respondent no.2, who is the
wife of the revisionist.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The record reveals that the respondent
no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from
the revisionist, which is the basis of the case.
4. In the case, an application for interim
maintenance was filed. According to the respondent
no.2, she and the revisionist were married on
10.12.2013. The respondent no.2 was harassed in her
matrimonial house for additional demand of dowry and
on 16.11.2018, she was expelled from her house. She is
staying with her old aged mother. She has no means to
survive, whereas, the revisionist earns about Rs.
30,000/- per month.
5. The revisionist filed objections and objected
to the averments made in the application for
maintenance. The marriage is admitted. It is admitted
that the respondent no.2 is staying separate, but the
reasons for staying separate is disputed. The income is
also disputed. According to the revisionist, he only earns
about Rs. 4,000/- per month by working in a shop.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist earns Rs. 4,000/- per month
only from all sources; he cannot pay Rs. 5,000/- per
month as interim maintenance. A certificate of Tehsildar,
with regard to income, has been referred to.
7. The Court wanted to know as to how a
Tehsildar could give income certificate to a person from
all sources. Has the Tehsildar taken into consideration
the remuneration, which the revisionist is getting from
any shop where he has been allegedly working? How can
somebody pay Rs. 4,000/- against the provisions of The
Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is not the case of the
revisionist that he is not able-bodied person. It is also
not the case that he is unwell or not able to earn his
livelihood. In the impugned order, the court below, in
para 9, discussed the source of income of the revisionist
and observed that, in fact, the revisionist did not furnish
complete information, as per the judgment in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324. The
court below also observed that, in fact, the revisionist
concealed from the court his bank statements for
requisite years. Although, the court below did not
conclusively determine as to what is the monthly income
of the revisionist. But it makes less difference. The court
below has observed that the revisionist has financial
means; he is a capable person. The amount of Rs.
5,000/- as interim maintenance, by no stretch of
imagination, under the facts and circumstances of this
case, could be said to be excessive. Therefore, this Court
does not see any error, illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order.
8. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that the court below did not commit
any error. This Court does not see any reason to make
any interference and the revision deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
9. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.10.2022
Ravi Bisht
