Mohd. Ashraf vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3373 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 633 of 2022


Mohd. Ashraf                                 ...........Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                  ..... Respondents


Mr. Gaurav Pawar, 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

judgment and order dated 14.09.2022, passed in Misc.

Case No. 1 of 2022, Smt. Amreen vs. Mohd. Ashraf, by

the court of Judge, Family Court Kotdwar, District Pauri

Garhwal (for short, "the case"). By it, the revisionist has

been directed to pay `6,000/- per month as an interim

maintenance to the respondent no.2, the wife and the

respondent no.3, the son of the revisionist (`3,000/- to

the respondent no.2, the wife, and `3,000/- to the

respondent no.3, the son).

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 the respondent no.2, the

revisionist and the respondent no.2 were married on

15.07.2018. After marriage, the respondent no.2 was

harassed, tortured and beaten-up in connection with

demand of dowry. Finally, since 16.10.2021, the

respondent no.2 is staying in her father's house. She has

no means to maintain herself whereas, the revisionist is

a contractor, he fixes tiles and earns about `1,00,000/-

per month. The revisionist objected the case of the

revisionist on all counts. According to the revisionist the

respondent no.2 and her family wanted that the

revisionist may stay in the father's house of the

respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 has deserted the

revisionist for no reasons. The revisionist is a labourer.

4. In the case parties adduced evidence. The

respondent no.2 appeared as witness and filed certain

documents. On behalf of the revisionist, he himself has

examined. By the impugned order, the court below while

considering the rival contentions passed the order of

maintenance. It is impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

argue that he is not in a position to pay `6,000/- per

month to the respondent nos.2 and 3 because he himself

earns `12,000/- per month. It is also argued that, in

fact, the revisionist is a witness in a criminal case and

the respondent no.2 and her father have been

pressurizing the revisionist to withdraw from witness, to

which, the revisionist is not agreeable. It is argued that

in order to pressurizing the revisionist, false claim of

maintenance has been filed by the respondent no.2.

6. Admittedly, the revisionist and the

respondent no.2 were married and a child, respondent

no.3, is born from their wedlock. It is also admitted that

the revisionist and the respondent nos.2 and 3 are

staying separate. It is not the case of the revisionist that

the respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself. It is

being argued that for pressurising the revisionist for not

being witness in a criminal case, the claim has been

filed. This argument has less merit for acceptance. The

case has to be scrutinized on its own merit.

7. The only argument which has been raised

with regard to the excessiveness of the maintenance

ordered to be paid by the revisionist to respondent nos.2

and 3. The impugned order itself records that the

revisionist is skilled in "Pathar Gissai" (laying floors in

the houses). He also admitted that he owes a machine

for it. The impugned order in para 22 quotes as to what

the revisionist has stated. He tells the Court that the

work of making floors is done on daily basis as well as

on the contractual basis.

8. In the cases where the parties have no

documents of their income, it becomes little difficult for

the court to make an assessment or estimation of the

income of a person. In fact, the court is guided by the

position of the parties, their skills, their expertise and

other attending factors in arriving at a just conclusion.

9. In the instant case, the court below took

into consideration the statement given by the revisionist

that he is an expert in making floors in the houses. The

court below also took into consideration that on different

dates various sums were deposited in the account of the

revisionist, which ranges from `5,000/- to `40,000/-.

After assessing all these factors, the court below opined

that the income of the revisionist may be fixed at

`20,000/-. This Court has no reason to make any other

assessment. The court below has, in fact, advantage of

interacting with the revisionist. After making an

assessment with regard to the income of the revisionist

the court below directed the revisionist to pay `6,000/-

to the respondent nos.2 and 3, as maintenance.

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the

view that there is no reason which may warrant any

interference in the impugned judgment and order.

Therefore, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

11. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.10.2022 Sanjay