Uttarakhand High Court
Farman vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 601 of 2022
Farman ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder 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 05.09.2022,
passed in Case No. 267 of 2019, Smt. Mohseena Vs.
Farman, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court,
Roorkee, District Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been directed to pay total Rs.5,000/- per
month as interim maintenance to the respondent no.2,
his wife, and the respondent no.3, his son.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("the Code"), by the respondent no.2 seeking
maintenance from the revisionist for herself and her
minor son, the respondent no.3. According to her, she
and the revisionist were married on 08.05.2016, but
subsequent to the marriage, the respondent no.2 was
harassed, tortured and beaten up for demand of
additional dowry. There have been a compromise also in
the past, but finally the respondent no.2 was expelled
from her matrimonial house on 04.08.2019. She has no
means to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist is a
man of means.
4. The revisionist objected to the application.
According to the revisionist, the respondent no.2 wanted
to stay separate from their family at Roorkee, to which
the revisionist was not agreeable. On 10.07.2019, in the
absence of the revisionist, the respondent no.2 left her
matrimonial house along with a cash of Rs. 50,000/-
and other articles. When the revisionist tried to take her
back, she declined. According to the revisionist, he also
filed a suit for restitution for conjugal rights against the
respondent no.2, which is still pending. The revisionist
claims that he is a labourer, who somehow maintains
himself, whereas, the respondent no.2 earns Rs. 5,000/-
per month and is able to maintain herself.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the respondent no.2 is staying separate
without any reasonable cause. In a complaint filed by
the revisionist, summoning order has been passed on
20.02.2021. In that order, the court has recorded a
report of the police, according to which though the
revisionist wants to take the respondent no.2 along with
him, but the respondent no.2 is not willing to join his
company. In addition to this, it is also argued that the
revisionist hardly earns Rs. 5,000/- per month and he is
not in a position to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as
interim maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
6. During the course of argument, reference
has been made by the learned counsel for the revisionist
to an order dated 20.2.2021, passed in Complaint Case
No. 790 of 2019, , Farman Vs. Mohseen and others, by
the court of Judicial Magistrate/ Chief Judicial (Junior
Division), Roorkee, District Haridwar. This case is based
on a complaint filed by the revisionist. It records a report
of police to the effect that the revisionist wanted to take
his wife back but she does not want to join his company.
The respondent no.2 has been also summoned for an
offence under Section 380 IPC.
7. The case is yet at the stage of interim
maintenance. Final adjudication is done after parties are
allowed to lead evidence. If police gives a report on
factual aspects, that have less bearing at this stage. At
least, such report cannot decline the claim of a
legitimate claimant. Interim maintenance is provided so
that a claimant in need may not be left in a position of
vagrancy and destitute. There are diverse claims as to
why the respondent no.2 is staying separate with her
young son. They would find adjudication in the case. At
this stage, any conclusive finding cannot be recorded. By
the summoning order, the respondent no.2 has been
summoned under Section 380 IPC. A wife, if leaves her
house and takes some belongings from there, can it be
said that an offence under Section 380 IPC is made out?
This question would fall for adjudication in the
complaint filed by the revisionist.
8. Insofar as the amount of maintenance is
concerned, in Para 5 of the impugned order, the court
has discussed this aspect. The court has taken note of
the fact that even a labourer could earn Rs. 500/- per
day. It is not the claim of the revisionist that he is not
able-bodied person and cannot earn. The court, based
on per day income of a labourer, concluded that it may
safely be assumed that the revisionist earns Rs.
15,000/- per month. The court refrains to record any
finding as to what would be the exact income of the
revisionist. At this stage, whatever assumption, based on
relevant factors, has been drawn by the court below,
that may not be termed as perverse. It is an estimation.
9. A wife and a son has been given Rs.
5,000/- per month as maintenance. It, in no manner,
can be said to be excessive.
10. 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.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that directions may be given to the court below
to decide the case expeditiously.
12. Needless to say, the proceedings under
Section 125 of the Code are summary in nature; they
have an element of urgency and the courts are always
conscious of this fact that such cases should get
disposal with much promptitude. With these
observation, the revision stands dismissed at the stage
of admission itself.
13. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
11.10.2022
Ravi Bisht
