Bhaskar Tiwari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 672 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

           Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2023


Bhaskar Tiwari                                  ......... Revisionist

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                 .......Respondents


Present:
           Mr. H.C. Pathak, Advocate for the revisionist.
           Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State.


                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

impugned order dated 23.01.2023, passed in Misc.

Criminal Case No. 321 of 2021, Shruti Sharma Vs.

Bhaskar Tiwari, by the court of Judge, Family Court,

Haldwani, District Nainital. By it, the revisionist has been

directed to pay interim maintenance to respondent nos. 2

and 3 @ of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.9,000/- per month

respectively.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. In the proceedings under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the respondent no. 2

filed an application for interim maintenance, seeking

maintenance for herself and her daughter. It has been the

case of the respondent no.2 that in the year 2019, the

revisionist expelled her from matrimonial house. She is

unemployed and dependent on her parents, whereas, the

revisionist earns about Rs.1 Lakh per month. He has a lot

of ancestral property. He has flats at Noida. He receives

rent also.

4. The revisionist file objection. According to him,

the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial company without

any reason. She is qualified and able to maintain herself. It

is the case of the revisionist that hardly he earns

Rs.40,000/- per month. His father's both kidneys have

damaged and he has to go for dialysis thrice in a week on

which Rs.50,000/- expenses are incurred.

5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned

order, the court directed the revisionist to pay Rs.10,000/-

per month as interim maintenance to his wife and

Rs.9,000/- per month to his daughter.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit

that the revisionist hardly earns Rs.40,000/- per month.

He takes money from his brother-in-law for his expenses.

His father is unwell. He has to go for dialysis thrice a week

on which Rs.50,000/- per month expenses are incurred.

7. The impugned order records that the father of

the revisionist was Government employee. He receives

pension. When asked, learned counsel for the revisionist

would submit that about Rs.35,000/- pension he receives.

8. An affidavit with regard to the assets and

responsibilities has been filed by the revisionist, which is

on record. It reveals the deposits in the bank account of

the revisionist. He has a four wheeler vehicle also. He has

LIC policies. He pays around Rs.40,000/- per month as

installment towards the property purchased in Noida.

9. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is a

pensioner, who gets pension. These all factors have been

considered by the court below and thereafter, arrived at a

conclusion. It cannot be said that the impugned order is

illegal, wrong or improper.

10. 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.

11. The revision is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.03.2023 Jitendra