Uttarakhand High Court
Subhash Chandra vs Madhulata Kumari on 19 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 640 of 2022
Subhash Chandra ....Revisionist
Vs.
Madhulata Kumari ..... Respondent
Presents:-
Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the revisionist.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order of interim maintenance dated 17.09.2022,
passed in Criminal Case No. 03 of 2022, Madhulata
Kumari Vs. Subhash Chandra, by the court of Family
Judge, Almora ("the case"). By it, the interim
maintenance application, filed by the respondent, has
been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to
pay Rs. 12,000/- per month as interim maintenance to
the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The record reveals that the respondent
no.2, who is the wife of the revisionist, filed an
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance for herself, which
is the basis of the case. It is the case of the respondent
that she and the revisionist were married on 17.01.2008.
A daughter was also born from the wedlock.
Subsequently, the respondent, after marriage, was
harassed for demand of dowry.
4. The revisionist and the respondent, both
are highly educated. The respondent was temporarily
working in Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi.
But according to her, her fellowship expired in the
month of June, 2022; she has no means thereafter,
whereas, the revisionist is a man of means.
5. It has been objected to by the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that
the respondent is staying separate without any
reasonable cause. He would submit that the respondent
strategically moved the application three months prior to
expiration of her services, so as to get maintenance.
6. Admittedly, the revisionist is a professor in
a university. The impugned order records that the
respondent was on a fellowship in the Jawahar Lal
Nehru University, New Delhi, but it expires in the month
of June, 2022 and, in fact, it expired on 03.06.2022. The
impugned order records that the net monthly income of
the revisionist is Rs.88,734/-. There is nothing wrong
even if the respondent filed the application strategically
three months prior to the expiration of her fellowship
period in the Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi.
She had thought of her future, maintaining herself. This
reason may not make the impugned order bad.
7. The reasons for staying separate would
definitely be deliberated during final determination of the
case. The net salary of the revisionist is Rs. 88,734/-
and he has been directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month
to the respondent. By no means, it can be said to be
excessive. Although, the court refrains to record a
finding as to whether it is adequate or not? The Court
refrains to adjudicate as to whether the interim
maintenance amount should have been more than what
has been granted.
8. 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 and the revision deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
9. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
19.10.2022
Ravi Bisht
