Uttarakhand High Court
Saurabh Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 14 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 617 of 2022
Saurabh Pandey ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Joshi, 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 28.09.2022,
passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 311 of 2021, Smt.
Pooja Bhatt Pandey Vs. Saurabh Pandey, by the court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District
Nainital ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been
directed to pay total Rs.6,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to the respondent no.2, his wife.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. Facts necessary to appreciate the
controversy, briefly stated, are as follows: The revisionist
and the respondent no.2, the wife, were married on
22.04.2021. It is the case of the wife that after marriage,
the revisionist left her at railway station, due to
additional demand of dowry. She has no means to
survive, whereas, the revisionist is employed in a
company and gets Rs. 90,000/- per month salary. Apart
from it, he has income from the properties. The wife filed
an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, in which an application for interim
maintenance was filed in which the impugned order has
been passed.
4. It is the case of the revisionist that, in fact,
earlier, he was working with a company, but his services
have been terminated and now he merely earns Rs.
6,000/- per month as a part-time driver with a travel
agency.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist earns Rs. 6,000/- per month;
he is not in a position to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as
interim maintenance.
6. An affidavit filed, pursuant to the judgment
in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2
SCC 324 is on record. It is not as per the guidelines as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has no
columns with regard to the bank statements, etc.
Admittedly, the revisionist did not file his 3 years' bank
statements. It is being submitted that, in fact, the
revisionist and the respondent no.2 had love marriage.
Soon after marriage, there was a discord. The
respondent no.2 did not want to stay with the parents of
the revisionist. There was a settlement but it did not
work.
7. Admittedly, the revisionist has done Master
of Business Administration. Earlier, he was on a job
earning good salary. The court below, considering all the
facts, concluded that the per month income of the
revisionist may be assessed as Rs.16,000/- per month
and accordingly, directed him to pay Rs. 6,000/- per
month as interim maintenance.
8. This Court does not see anything wrong in
the assumption or the assessment, which has been
made by the court below.
9. Keeping in view this and other attending
factors, 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. Accordingly, the
revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
10. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.10.2022
Ravi Bisht
