Naveen Chandra Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3286 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 606 of 2022


Naveen Chandra Bhatt                                 ....Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                  ..... Respondents


Mr. Mukul Dangi, 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

impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2021 as well

as order dated 30.08.2022, passed in Misc. Criminal

Case No.15 of 2021, Smt. Parwati Bhatt and others Vs.

Naveen Chandra Bhatt, by the court of Family Judge,

Nainital, District Nainital ("the case") as well as order

dated 30.08.2022. By the order dated 24.07.2021, the

revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- interim

maintenance to the private respondents and by the order

dated 30.08.2022, recovery warrant has been issued for

recovery of arrears of interim maintenance.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. The case is based on an application for

maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), by the

respondent no.2 seeking maintenance for herself and

her two minor children, the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

According to it. The respondent no.2 and the revisionist

were married on 05.12.2011. But soon after her

marriage, the respondent no.2 was harassed, tortured

and taunted for additional demand of dowry. The

revisionist had bad habits. He was in a company of a

woman. He would beat up the respondent no.2. Finally,

on 17.11.2020, the revisionist expelled the respondent

no.2 from her matrimonial house. The respondent no.2

has no means to survive, whereas, the revisionist earns

Rs. 40,000/- per month.

4. This was objected to by the revisionist on

the ground that in order to harass the revisionist, the

respondent no.2 is staying separate with her children. It

has been claimed by the revisionist that he pays Rs.

2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent

no.2.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the income of the revisionist is Rs. 4,000/-

per month; he is not in a position to pay Rs. 5,000/- per

month maintenance; the respondent no.2 is staying

separate without any reasonable cause; even after the

order dated 24.07.2021, the revisionist has been making

part payment, but on 30.08.2022, recovery warrants

have been issued without affording any opportunity to

the revisionist. Therefore, it is argued that the

proceedings of the recovery may be stayed.

6. The order dated 24.07.2021 has been

passed in the case at the stage of interim maintenance.

Both the parties have diverse claims as to why

respondent no.2 is staying separate. The respondent

no.2 claims that she has been harassed, beaten up by

the revisionist. Parties would definitely lead evidence.

This issue may finally get decided to the extent of

deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code.

7. It has been claimed by the respondent no.2

that she is not able to maintain herself. Though, the

revisionist claims that he earns Rs. 4,000/- per month,

but the court below did not believe in it for the simple

reason that the revisionist himself has said that he pays

Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no.2, as

maintenance. He also pays Rs. 1,810/- as monthly

instalment of a loan. The court below took into

consideration both these amounts and if added Rs.

2,000/- and Rs. 1,810/- comes to Rs. 3,810/-. If it is

deducted from Rs. 4,000/-, as claimed to be his income

by the revisionist, the total money left with the

revisionist comes to be Rs. 190/-. The court below

observed how in Rs. 190/-, the revisionist could survive

and maintain his parents. Observing it, the court below

did not believe the amount of income, as claimed by the

revisionist. It is also not the case of the revisionist that

he is not able-bodied person. He is 39 years of age.

8. Definitely, it cannot be presumed that a

person of good health would earn only Rs. 4,000/- per

month.

9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that the court below did not commit

any error in awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month to the

private respondents.

11. In so far as the recovery warrant is

concerned, which has been issued by the impugned

order dated 30.08.2022, admittedly, the revisionist did

not make payment of interim maintenance. The court

had no option. It is argued by learned counsel for the

revisionist that the revisionist was not afforded any

opportunity for hearing before the court. Where is the

question of giving any opportunity? The revisionist has

been directed to pay interim maintenance.

12. The Court gave an opportunity to learned

counsel for the revisionist to explain as to why the

recovery should not be made for the revisionist? Why the

revisionist is not paying the amount of interim

maintenance?

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist is ready to pay it in the

instalments.

14. The revisionist, if intends to make the

payment in instalments, he is free to move such an

application before the court concerned. This Court has

no doubt that if such an application is moved, the court

below would consider it, keeping in view all the

attending factors.

15. The impugned orders are in accordance

with law. There is no reason for this Court to stay the

recovery proceedings. With these observation, the

revision deserves dismissed at the stage of admission

itself.

16. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.10.2022 Ravi Bisht