Sanjit Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3075 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2020


Sanjit Chauhan                                     ....Revisionist

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                 ..... Respondents


Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the private respondents.


                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

judgment and order dated 02.11.2019, passed in

Criminal Case No. 357 of 2018, Smt. Archana Rawat

Chauhan and Another Vs. Sanjit Chauhan, by the court

of Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun ("the

case"). By the impugned order, an application filed

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 ("the Code"), by the respondent no.2 for herself and

her son, the respondent no.3, has been allowed and the

revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the

respondent no.2, his wife, and Rs. 10,000/- to the

respondent no.3 per month as interim maintenance.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law

for the following two reasons:-

(i) The income of the opposite party has

wrongly been presumed by the court. The

revisionist has filed his employment and income

certificate. It has wrongly been not taken into

consideration. And;

(ii) The respondent no.2 has been

staying separate without any reasonable cause.

Therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance in

view of Section 125 (4) of the Code.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

private respondents would submit that the impugned

judgment and order does not warrant ay interference. It

is argued that despite order of the court below to

produce income tax returns, the revisionist did not

submit his income tax returns. It is also argued that

once the impugned order was passed on 02.11.2019, the

revisionist, on 16.01.2020, gifted his properties to his

sister and, thereafter, on 17.01.2020, he filed his

affidavits in this Court.

5. At it, learned counsel for the revisionist

would submit that these factors may not be taken into

consideration in this revision because the revision may

only touch upon the legality, correctness and propriety

of the impugned judgment and order. And even, the

factors that took place post passing of the impugned

order may not be taken into consideration. Although,

when asked by the Court, learned counsel for the

revisionist would submit that, in fact, the revisionist had

purchased a property from his sister. He had taken loan

on that property for the treatment of his mother.

Subsequently, he gifted that property to his sister.

6. It raises many questions. If a person

purchases a property from his sister and takes loan on

it, does not it mean that such person is in financial

crises? And if it is so, why should that person gift the

property to the person, from whom, he had purchased

the property? But, definitely, these transactions were

post passing of the impugned order. They were not the

part of the record before the court below. Therefore, this

Court refrains to make any further discussion on that

issue and those transactions shall not have any bearing

while examining the correctness, legality or propriety of

the impugned judgment and order.

7. Admittedly, this is a revision. The scope is

quite restricted to the extent of examining the

correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned

judgment unless the finding is perverse or material

evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered.

8. The case is based on an application filed

under Section 125 of the Code by the respondent no.2

seeking maintenance for herself and her son from the

revisionist. According to the respondent no.2, after

marriage, she was harassed and tortured for the

additional demand of dowry. She was taunted, neglected

and tortured on small issues. The application under

Section 125 of the Code is quite in detail. According to it,

on 30.05.2016, the respondent no.2 was expelled from

matrimonial house. She has no means to maintain

herself, whereas, it is the case of the respondent no.2

that the revisionist is a person of means and he could

easily provide the respondent nos. 2 and 3, Rs.65,000/-

per month for maintenance.

9. In his objections filed against the

application, the revisionist has denied those allegations.

According to him, he was earlier working in a company,

but due to frequent appearance in the court, he had to

resign and now he is unemployed. It is also stated that

the respondent no.2 has been staying separate without

any reasonable cause. It is also the case of the

revisionist that the respondent no.2 is able to maintain

herself. She is highly qualified.

10. Two questions have been raised. (i) reasons

for staying separate and (ii) the income of the revisionist.

11. It is the categorical case of the respondent

no.2 that after marriage, she was harassed in her

matrimonial house and finally she was expelled from her

matrimonial house on 30.05.2016. It is admitted that

parties, at one point of time, stayed together.

12. The court below has discussed evidence on

that aspect. The Court does not find any illegality, error

or impropriety in the findings recorded by the court

below. After appreciating the evidence, the conclusion

has been drawn by the court below. In fact, the

discussion is in quite detail. In para 40 of the impugned

order, the court recorded the finding that the respondent

no.2 has sufficient reasons to stay separate from the

revisionist. This finding does not warrant any

interference. It is in accordance with law.

13. In so far as the income of the revisionist is

concerned, in his objections, the revisionist has stated

that he was earlier working with some company and he

has resigned from there.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist admits

that the resignation letter has not been filed by the

revisionist in the court below.

15. What is argued with utmost force is that an

income certificate filed by the revisionist has not been

taken into consideration.

16. It may not be appropriate to say that the

court did not consider the certificate filed by the

revisionist. The court, in fact, framed issues for

determination and under issue no.3, this aspect has

been considered. In Para 28, the certificate filed by the

revisionist has been considered in quite detail. The court

did not believe it and observed that the monthly income

of the revisionist is about Rs. 70,000/-. This finding is

also based on evidence.

17. A certificate dated 19.08.2019, with regard

to employment was filed by the revisionist in the court

below. According to it, the revisionist started working

with some ARD Group on 08.08.2019. On 16.08.2019,

the revisionist also filed an affidavit and in para 4 of it,

he stated that he has been working with ARD Group

since 10.08.2019.

18. This Court asked learned counsel for the

revisionist as to which is the correct document? The

affidavit dated 16.08.2019 filed by the revisionist or the

certificate of employment dated 19.08.2019. There is no

reply to it. Not only this, what is important is on

30.09.2019, the revisionist filed an affidavit in his

examination-in-chief. On that date, it has been taken on

record and in Para 85 of it, the revisionist writes that he

had already resigned from his job and he is unemployed.

Fact remain that earlier the revisionist filed an affidavit

on 16.08.2019 saying that he had been working in one

ARD Group since 10.08.2019. If it is so, how was the

revisionist unemployed on 30.09.2019 when he filed his

affidavit (Para 85) in the examination-in-chief.

19. On 15.10.2019, the revisionist was directed

by the court to file his income tax returns. The Court

wanted to know from learned counsel for the revisionist

as to whether he filed his income tax report? The reply is

in negative.

20. In cases where the court finds that the

documents with regard to income are not believable, the

court generally makes an estimation with regard to the

income of a person. In such circumstances, definitely

the assessment made by the court may not be accurate

or precise. But the court always tries to reach to the

nearest possible extent of the actual income of the

person. That is what the court below has done in this

case. The estimation of the income, which the court

below has arrived at cannot be said to be perverse. It is

based on the qualification of the revisionist, his earlier

admitted salary, his conduct, the unreliability of the

documents, his denial to file income tax returns, etc.

21. Having considered the entirety of facts, this

Court is of the view that the impugned order is in

accordance with law. This Court does not see any reason

to make any interference. Accordingly, the revision

deserves to be dismissed.

22. The revision is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.09.2022 Ravi Bisht