Uttarakhand High Court
Gulsheir vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 620 of 2022
Gulsheir ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ..... Respondents
Ms. Neetu Singh, 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 25.07.2022, passed in Case
No.42 of 2020, Smt. Sazida and another vs. Gulsher, by
the court of Judge, Family Court Haridwar, District
Haridwar (for short, "the case"). By which, the revisionist
has been directed to pay `5,000/- per month to the
respondent no.2, his wife and respondent no.3, his
daughter (`3,000/- to the wife and `2,000/- to the
daughter).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Facts necessary to appreciate the
controversy briefly stated are as follows. The respondent
no.2, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code")
seeking maintenance from the revisionist. According to
it, after marriage on 11.11.2018 with the revisionist, the
respondent no.2 was harassed, tortured and beaten up
in connection with additional demand of dowry and
finally expelled from the house on 07.02.2020. According
to the respondent no.2, she has no means to survive
but, the revisionist earns about `70,000/- to `80,000/-
per month.
4. The revisionist filed objections. The factum
of marriage is admitted, but the harassment, torture and
demand of dowry has been denied by the revisionist.
According to the revisionist, the respondent no.2 left his
company when she was pregnant. It is the case of the
revisionist that the respondent no.2 works in a godown
and earns `20,000/- per month whereas, he is a
labourer and who does not get work every day.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
revisionist would submit that the order is bad in the
eyes of law because according to it, the revisionist has
been directed to pay maintenance from the date of filing
of the application by the respondent no.2. It is argued
that, in fact, once interim maintenance was granted in
the case, which was challenged by the revisionist in
Criminal Revision No.157 of 2022, Gulsher vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others (for short, "the revision"). The
revision was decided by this Court on 18.04.2022 and
the Court passed the following order:-
"5. Considering the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, the present criminal
revision is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The matter is remanded back to the learned
Court below to decide the same without being
prejudiced, as expeditiously as possible.
(ii) Till the final disposal of the case by the Court
below, the revisionist shall pay a total sum of Rs.
2,500/- and Rs. 1,500/- per month regularly to
respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, before 10th of
every month and without any break from the date of
this order. However, the learned Court below shall be
at liberty to either reduce or enhance the amount of
maintenance after hearing learned counsel for both
the parties from such date as the learned Court below
deems it fit, in accordance with law.
6. Needless to say that if any application pertaining
to the arrears of maintenance is filed before the Court
below, the same shall be disposed of on merits, as per law."
6. It is argued that keeping in view the order
passed by this Court in revision now, the maintenance is
to be granted from the date of order and not from the
date of application. It is also argued that, in fact, the
court having considered the income of the revisionist
directed to pay `4,000/- per month as interim
maintenance. The means are the same, therefore,
enhanced maintenance @ `5,000/- per month cannot be
termed as in accordance with law. At the end, learned
counsel for the revisionist would place a submission that
the revisionist may be granted liberty at least to pay the
arrears in installments and the court below may be
directed accordingly.
7. This is a revision. The scope is much
restricted to examine the correctness, legality and
propriety of the impugned judgment and order. It is true
that when the interim maintenance order was challenged
in the revision, the Court had passed certain observation
as quoted hereinabove. But, when finally decided the
court below was not bound by such directions. That
order was passed at the stage of interim maintenance. It
always remains subject to the evidence that is produced
by the parties for finally deciding the case.
8. Admittedly, the revisionist is a labourer.
The respondent no.2 has claimed that the revisionist
earns `70,000/- to `80,000/- per month, but the court
below did not accept it. Having considered the attending
circumstances, the court below assessed the monthly
income of the revisionist as `15,000/- per month. Since,
there is no such source of income of the revisionist,
which could have been established by any document, it
is really a kind of an estimate or an assessment with
regard to the income of the revisionist. The court in such
cases always guided by the attending circumstances that
is what has been taken into consideration by the court
below. Having assessed the income of the revisionist as
`15,000/- per month, the court below directed the
revisionist to pay total `5,000/- per month to his wife
and his daughter. It cannot be termed as excessive.
Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference in
the revision and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage
of admission itself.
9. However, in case, the revisionist approach
the court concerned and seeks time to pay arrears in
installments, this Court has no doubt that the court
below shall consider the application, in accordance with
law, taking in view all the attending factors.
10. With the above observation, the revision is
dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.10.2022
Sanjay
