Rajveer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1012 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 728 of 2022


Rajveer Singh                                        ....Revisionist

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                   ..... Respondents


Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The revisionist proposes to challenge the

judgment and order dated 15.10.2022, passed in

Misc. Criminal Case No.02 of 2019, Smt. Soniya Vs.

Rajveer, by the court of Judge, Family Court,

Vikasnagar, District Dehradun ("the case"). By it, the

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

per month as maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and

3 (Rs. 6,000/- to the respondent no.2, his wife and Rs.

4,000/- to the respondent no.3, his daughter).

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. The record reveals that the respondent

no.2, Smt. Soniya, moved an application under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the

Code"), seeking maintenance from the revisionist for

herself and her daughter. It has been the case of the

respondent no.2 that she and the revisionist were

married on 14.11.2014, but in due course of time, the

revisionist started harassing her. She was beaten up

also, of which a report was also lodged by the

respondent no.2, which was pending trial when the

application under Section 125 of the Code was filed.

4.            It has   further been the      case   of the

respondent    no.2   that   on   07.09.2018,    when    the

respondent no.2 came to know that the revisionist is

getting married with some other woman, she objected to

it. But, at that time, the revisionist told it to the police

that his marriage with the respondent no.2 had already

been dissolved. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 came

to know that, in fact, the marriage of the respondent

no.2 with the revisionist had been ex parte dissolved on

20.03.2018, in some court at Rajasthan. The respondent

no.2 moved an application for restoration of that ex parte

order, which was pending at the relevant time. With

regard to the income, it has been the case of the

respondent no.2 that the revisionist earns Rs. 1 Lakh

per month.

5. Objections have been filed by the

revisionist denying all the allegations levelled by the

respondent no.2. According to him, the respondent no.2

never wanted to stay in her matrimonial house. She had

illegal demands. When the respondent no.2 left the

company of the revisionist, the revisionist filed a suit for

restitution of conjugal rights, which was ex parte

decreed. The respondent no.2 did not resume the

matrimonial company. Thereafter, a suit for dissolution

of marriage was filed, which has been decreed ex parte.

Thereafter, the revisionist married another woman on

07.09.2018.

6. It has also been the case of the revisionist

that he is a street vendor; he has responsibility to

maintain his second wife and children from the second

wife and also he has responsibility to maintain his aged

mother.

7. The respondent no.2 adduced evidence in

the case, whereas, the revisionist did not adduce any

evidence. In Para 22 of the impugned order, it has been

so stated. The respondent no.2 filed evidence. She also

filed affidavits pursuant to the judgment in the case of

Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that he is a poor street vendor, who runs a theli.

He hardly earns Rs. 12,000/- per month. He has

responsibility to maintain his second wife and children

born from her. It is also argued that, in fact, during

counselling, the respondent no.2 denied to join the

company of the revisionist, until the revisionist

purchases a separate house for her.

9. It is a revision against the order awarding

maintenance. The revisionist did not adduce any

evidence, whatsoever, in the case. The evidence, which

was led by the respondent no.2 remained unrebutted. In

the impugned order, the material available before the

court has been discussed quite in detail and after

considering the material that was available before the

court, the impugned order has been passed. In the

impugned order, no irrelevant material has been

considered or relevant material has not been ignored.

The finding is based on the evidence that was available

before the court. At the cost of repetition, it may be

stated that the revisionist did not opt to lead any

evidence in the case.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that there is no error, illegality or impropriety in the

impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the revision

deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission.

11. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.04.2023 Ravi Bisht