Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Jumshed vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 627 of 2022
Shri Jumshed ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ..... Respondents
Mr. Rajat Mittal, 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 revisionist challenges the order dated
26.07.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.57 of
2022, Smt. Nusrat vs. Shri Jumshed, by the court of
Judge, Family Court Vikasnagar, District Dehradun (for
short, "the case"). By which, the revisionist has been
directed to pay `10,000/- per month to the respondent
no.2, his wife.
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, who is wife of the revisionist. In the
case, an application for interim maintenance has been
filed. According to the respondent no.2, she and the
revisionist were married on 12.05.2012, but the
revisionist and his family members were not happy with
the articles, which the respondent no.2 had brought.
They were taunting, abusing and beating the respondent
no.2 for an additional demand of dowry. The respondent
no.2 was finally expelled from her matrimonial house on
15.05.2022. According to her, she has no means to
survive whereas, the revisionist is a man of means, who
earns `60,000/- per month. The revisionist objected to
the application filed by the respondent no.2 on all
counts.
4. It is the case of the revisionist that the
income of his family jointly is about `15,000/- to
`20,000/- per month. His parents, sister and sister's
daughter are dependent on him. With regard to the
respondent no.2, according to the revisionist, she earns
about `10,000/- per month and her father is an
agriculturist.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that both the children are staying with the
revisionist. The amount of maintenance is on higher
side. The revisionist has to maintain his mother, his
sister and her daughter.
6. It is a revision. Factual aspects are not
generally examined unless there are special reasons to
do so. The impugned order categorically records the
arguments made by the revisionist and discussed at it.
7. In para 18 of the impugned order, it is
categorically stated that, in fact, in a litigation, the
husband of the sister of the revisionist has been directed
to pay `10,000/- per month as maintenance to the sister
of the revisionist. The court below considered the
account's details of the revisionist. It, in fact, it appears
belies the version of the revisionist that the income of
the joint family is about `15,000/- to `20,000/- per
month because huge amount was deposited in the
account of the revisionist on various dates. On
02.02.2020, itself `4,00,000/- was deposited and in the
year 2021, on multiple occasions huge amount was
deposited in his account. Having considered all these
factors, the court below directed the revisionist to pay
`10,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 as interim
maintenance. It cannot be said to be excessive. Even the
Court refrains to record, as to whether it is adequate or
not? But, at the behest of the revisionist, this Court is of
the view that there is no reason to make any interference
in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision
deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.10.2022
Sanjay
