Rajendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3348 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 628 of 2022


Rajendra Singh                               ...........Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                 ..... Respondents


Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the
State.



                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

order dated 17.09.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.

300 of 2021, Neha vs. Rajendra, by the court of Judge,

Family Court Haridwar, District Haridwar (for short, "the

case"). By which, the revisionist has been directed to pay

`15,000/- per month as an interim maintenance to the

respondent no.2, the wife of the revisionist.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Briefly stated, the case is based on an

application filed under Section 125 of the Code of

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

respondent no.2, seeking maintenance from the

revisionist. According to it, the revisionist and the

respondent no.2 were married on 18.04.2018. The

respondent no.2, just after marriage was harassed,

abused and tortured by her in-laws. The revisionist also

started ill-treating the respondent no.2, she was beaten-

up. Due to the ill-treatment, extended by the revisionist,

the respondent no.2 started staying in her father's house

since 10.03.2022 in Moradabad. But, the application

under Section 125 of the Code records in para 12 that at

present, the revisionist is staying with her uncle within

the territorial jurisdiction of Tehsil Haridwar.

4. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that

she does not have any means to survive or maintain

herself, whereas the revisionist works as a Manager in a

company and earns `48,000/- per month. It is objected

to by the revisionist in all counts. It has been denied

that the respondent no.2 was ever ill-treated by the

revisionist or his family members.

5. It is the case of the revisionist that he gets

`55,000/- per month salary. He has multiple expenses,

his parents are old aged, depended on him, he has taken

some loan, of which, he pays instalments.

6. It is the case of the revisionist that, in fact,

the court at Haridwar has no jurisdiction to entertain

the application because parties never resided within the

jurisdiction of Haridwar court.

7. In the case, an application for interim

maintenance was also filed by the respondent no.2,

which has been allowed by the impugned order.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the main ground for assailing the impugned

order is want of jurisdiction. It is argued that in her

application, the respondent no.2 stated that she is

staying in her father's house since 10.03.2022 in

Moradabad and thereafter, she merely wrote a line that

at present, she has been staying with her uncle. It is

argued that this has been deliberately done to harass

the revisionist so as to file suit within the jurisdiction of

Haridwar court. Learned counsel would also refer to the

provisions of Section 126 of the Code to argue that sub-

section (1) clause (d) of it, provides jurisdiction of the

court where the parties resides. It is argued that the

respondent no.2 is not residing within the jurisdiction of

Haridwar court. She has been residing within the

jurisdiction of Moradabad court.

9. In addition to it, it is also argued that, in

fact, in her affidavit filed pursuant to the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha,

(2021) 2 SCC 324, the respondent no.2 did not reveal

her income in the column for the income, instead of

giving her own income, the respondent no.2 has given

the details of the income of the revisionist. It is stated

that in his affidavit the revisionist has stated that by

giving tuition, the respondent no.2 gets `25,000/- per

month.

10. Section 126 of the Code, provides the

procedure. Sub-section (1)(b) of it, inter alia provides

that, "proceeding under Section 125 may be taken

against any person in any district where he or his

wife resides."

11. The respondent no.2 writes in her

application under Section 125 of the Code that she

resides with her uncle within the territorial jurisdiction

of Tehsil Haridwar. It is argued that this has wrongly

been mentioned. It is a factual aspect. It may be

examined at the time of final determination of

application under Section 125 of the Code. At this stage,

it cannot be said that the statement with regard to

residing of the respondent no.2 is within the territorial

jurisdiction of Tehsil Haridwar has been written

maliciously or it is false. This Court, at this stage cannot

give any finding on it. It is not required at this stage.

12. In so far as, non-furnishing of the details of

income of the respondent no.2 is concerned, it is true

that in her affidavit, the respondent no.2 under head 'F'

has given details of the revisionist. In fact, this head 'F'

reads, "details of income of deponent". Under this

head 'F' the respondent no.2 was required to give details

with regard to her income, instead, the respondent

under this head 'F' has disclosed the income of the

revisionist.

13. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that

she is not able to maintain herself. She has no income.

In view of it, whether furnishing information of the

revisionist under the head 'F' in the affidavit filed

pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra)

is an error or done under a design? This Court cannot

record any finding at this stage.

14. In his affidavit, at one place, the revisionist

has stated that by tuition, the respondent no.2 gets

`25,000/- per month income.

15. The Court wanted to know, as to how and

where the respondent no.2 is giving tuition, how could

the revisionist say that the respondent no.2 earns

`25,000/- per month? There is no reply to it.

16. As stated, whether the information given by

the respondent no.2, under the head 'F' in the affidavit

filed pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh

(supra), has been deliberately done to conceal something

under a design? This fact, if brought to the notice of the

court concerned, would definitely be taken note of and

action, as permissible under law may definitely be taken.

But, merely on that basis the impugned order does not

become an order which may warrant interference.

17. The revisionist has admitted that he earns

`53,500/- per month. It is admitted that the parties were

married. It is admitted that the respondent no.2 is

staying separate. The respondent no.2 has stated that

she is not able to maintain herself.

18. In view of it, this Court is of the view that

the court below did not commit any error. There is no

reason to entertain this revision and the revision

deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

19. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.10.2022 Sanjay