Sharad Pratap Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 534 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2023

Sharad Pratap Singh                                   ....Revisionist

                                   Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ..... Respondents


Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.


                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to

the order of interim maintenance dated 15.12.2022,

passed in Case No. 218 of 2021, Smt. Priyadarshini and

Another Vs. Sharad Pratap Singh, by the court of

Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar ("the case"). By

it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 13,000/-

per month interim maintenance to the respondent no.2,

his wife, and Rs. 10,000/- interim maintenance to the

respondent no.3, his daughter.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. It appears that the respondent no.2 filed an

application seeking maintenance from the revisionist

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, which is the basis of the case. The respondent

no.2 also filed an application for interim maintenance,

which has been decided by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the respondent no.2, the wife, has already

been working and earning. Therefore, she should not be

paid interim maintenance. It is also argued that, in fact,

the monthly expenses of the revisionist is Rs. 37,500/-,

therefore, the interim maintenance granted is on higher

side. He would submit that the documents with regard

to the salary or appointment of the respondent no.2 has

not been filed in the court below and in her affidavit filed

pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs.

Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, the respondent

no.2 did not reveal her salary or her employment,

thereby, she did not disclose the correct particulars.

5. The Court is examining the legality,

correctness or propriety of the impugned order. It is

being argued that the documents with regard to the

salary of the respondent no.2 have not been filed in the

court below and the respondent no.2 did not disclose

correct facts and concealed material facts. If it is so, the

revisionist is definitely free to raise these issues before

the court below. But that may not be a ground, at this

stage, to interfere in the impugned order.

6. It is true that in his affidavits filed

pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra),

the revisionist has stated that his monthly expenditure

is Rs. 37,500/-, which includes car EMI, household

expenses, transport, etc. How are these Rs. 37,500/-

expenses? What are the individual expenses?

7. The impugned order records that the

respondent no.2 has no means to survive. She is unable

to maintain herself. It is admitted by learned counsel for

the revisionist that no document with regard to the

earning of the respondent no.2 could be filed in the

court below. Therefore, the impugned order provides

interim maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It

is also admitted that the total salary of the revisionist is

Rs. 70,000/-. Out of Rs. 70,000/- salary, if his wife and

daughter are paid Rs. 23,000/-per month, it cannot be

said to be excessive. Therefore, this Court does not see

any reason to make any interference in this revision.

Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed, at the

stage of admission itself.

8. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.02.2023 Ravi Bisht