Uttarakhand High Court
Trilok Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 15 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 624 of 2022
Trilok Singh ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder 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 02.08.2022,
passed in Criminal Case No. 225 of 2021, Smt. Vaishali
Airee Vs. Trilok Singh, by the court of Family Judge,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("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.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The respondent no.2 filed an application
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("the Code") seeking maintenance from the
revisionist on the ground that after marriage, she was
harassed, tortured and beaten up by the revisionist and
his family members. Finally, on 28.01.2021, she was
expelled from her matrimonial house. She has no means
to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist has income
from various sources and he earns Rs. 60,000/- per
month. In that proceeding, an application for interim
maintenance was filed.
4. The revisionist filed his objections denying
all the allegations. It is the case of the revisionist that he
hardly earns Rs. 2,000-3,000/- by dairy, whereas, the
respondent no.2 earns more than Rs. 10,000/- by way
of tuition, etc.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist is a poor person; he has very
less agricultural income; he earns Rs. 2,000-3,000/- per
month by selling milk; he cannot give Rs. 5,000/- to his
wife. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 is a
Schizophrenic patient; she would become violent in the
house; the revisionist got her treated also; no cruelty
was done to her.
6. It has not been indicated that the
revisionist is not an able-bodied person.
7. What are the reasons for staying separate
would fall for scrutiny during the proceedings under
Section 125 of the Code. At this stage, definitely no
conclusive finding could be recorded. Parties have
diverse version on it.
8. Insofar as the income part is concerned,
there is no document. Under such circumstances, it
really becomes difficult to assess or estimate the exact
income of a person. In his objections, the revisionist
writes that he earns Rs. 2,000-3,000/- per month,
whereas, according to him, the respondent no.2, his
wife, earns about Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of
tuition, embroidery, etc. On the one hand, according to
the revisionist, his wife is a Schizophrenic patient, who
becomes violent at times, and at the same time he would
submit that she earns Rs. 10,000/- per month by
tuitions. Does not this statement appear palpably false?
An able-bodied person can definitely maintain his wife.
Even the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
prescribes an amount for a person, who works.
9. 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.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that directions may be given to the court below
to decide the case expeditiously.
11. 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 deserves to be dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
12. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
15.10.2022
Ravi Bisht
