Uttarakhand High Court
Vaibhav Ahuja vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 16 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2022
In
Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2023
Vaibhav Ahuja ......... Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another .......Respondents
Present:
Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The revisionist proposes to challenge the interim
maintenance order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Criminal
Case No. 74 of 2022, Smt. Deepika Vs. Sri Vaibhav Ahuja,
by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun.
By it, the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per
month interim maintenance to the private respondent. The
revision is delayed and the delay condonation application
has been filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. It is submitted that, in fact, the revisionist has
to go abroad for his official work, therefore, he could not
file the revision on time.
4. Having considered, there are sufficient grounds
to condone the delay. Delay condonation application is
allowed. Delay in filing the revision is condoned.
5. Heard on admission.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the private respondent, who is the wife of the
revisionist is highly qualified. She has done MBA. She was
on job and was carrying Rs.1 Lakh per month salary. But,
she quit the job just to harass and to get maintenance from
the revisionist. It is argued that the amount of
maintenance is on the higher side.
7. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy,
briefly stated, are as follows. The private respondent filed
an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance from the revisionist.
It has been the case of the private respondent that she and
the revisionist were married on 16.02.2021, but after
marriage, she was harassed and her privacy was intruded
by the revisionist. There are various allegations in the
application. Under those circumstances, it is the case of
the private respondent that she started staying separate
from the revisionist since 08.11.2021. She is not able to
maintain herself. Whereas, the revisionist gets Rs.5 Lakh
per month salary. He has ancestral house, luxurious cars
etc. In that process, an application for interim maintenance
was filed seeking Rs.2,50,000/- per month, as interim
maintenance from the revisionist. The revisionist objected
to the allegations, as leveled by the private respondent.
According to the revisionist, he is not in a position to
maintain the private respondent.
8. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to
the extent of examining the correctness, legality and
propriety of the impugned order. In the impugned order,
the court has recorded that the marriage between the
parties is admitted and there is dispute with regard to
reasons of the private respondent staying separate.
9. In para 7 of the impugned order, the court
discussed the means of the parties. What is important note
is that the impugned order records that the revisionist did
not file an affidavit in respect of his assets and
responsibilities that is required to be filed pursuant to the
judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another,
(2021) 2 SCC 324. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that on 17.08.2022, the revisionist did file his
affidavit of assets and responsibilities. Fact remains that
the impugned order was passed on 17.08.2022. Does it
mean that the affidavit of assets and responsibilities was
filed after the impugned order was passed?
10. The private respondent did file affidavit with
regard to the assets and responsibilities and stated that
does not work. She has no means to survive. She is
dependent on parents. The revisionist did file his salary
slips and income tax returns which has revealed that in
the year 2021-2022 his salary was Rs.6 Lakh.
11. Having considered the entire facts, the court
below directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month, as amount of
maintenance.
12. This Court does not see any error, illegality or
impropriety in the impugned order. It is based on the
material, which was placed before the Court. It is the
revisionist himself, who did not file an affidavit his assets
and responsibilities. The private respondent has stated
that the revisionist is living a very luxurious life. His
income is Rs.5 Lakh per month. He has very expensive cars
with him.
13. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no reason to make any interference with the
impugned order. Therefore, the revision deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
14. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
16.03.2023
Jitendra
