Nikhil Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 705 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2021


Nikhil Sharma                               ....Revisionist

                            Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another          ..... Respondents


Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. V.V. Gautam and Ms. Sukhwani Singh, Advocates for the
respondent no.2.


                       JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

order dated 27.03.2021, passed in Criminal case No.77

of 2017, Smt. Pallavi Dhiman Vs. Nikhil Sharma, by the

court of Family Judge, Haridwar ("the case"). By the

impugned order, an application filed under Section 125

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), by

the private respondent, Smt. Pallavi Dhiman, has been

allowed, and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.

20,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of

filing of the application to the private respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist

and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the

controversy, briefly stated, are as follows: According to

the private respondent, she and the revisionist were

married on 30.04.2015, but after marriage, she was

harassed and tortured for and in connection with the

demand of dowry. Once, her foetus was also aborted.

She was forced to stay separate. She has no means to

survive, whereas the revisionist is working in Qsper

Consultancy Service, Noida, and gets more than Rs. 1

Lakh salary. Apart from it, he also gets money from

other sources. His monthly salary is not less than Rs. 4

Lakhs.

4. Objections were filed by the revisionist. He

denied all the allegations. According to the revisionist,

the private respondent has been staying separate

without any sufficient cause. It has been the case of the

revisionist that he gets Rs. 53,827/- salary. He has

many mandatory expenses. After mandatory expenses,

only Rs. 27,827/- remains with him. Whereas, with

regard to the private respondent, it is stated that she is

highly qualified and gets Rs. 30,000/- per month salary.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that PW3, Rajpal Saini, could not be examined;

the total salary of the revisionist is about Rs.53,000/-;

the amount of maintenance is on higher side.

6. Learned counsel for the private respondent

would submit that, in fact, the revisionist has committed

a forgery with the court; the salary of the revisionist is

more than Rs. 1 Lakh; he works in a very reputed

company (i.e. Qsper Consultancy Service, Noida) and

gets more than Rs. 1 Lakh per month salary. It is

submitted that in the revision, the revisionist has filed a

forged certificate and got the interim order by misleading

the court.

7. In support of her case, the private

respondent produced three witnesses, namely, PW1, she

herself as Pallavi Dhiman, PW2, Sadhu Ram Dhiman,

the father of the private respondent. They both have

been cross-examined at length. PW3, Rajpal Saini, has

not been cross-examined by the revisionist.

8. On 11.01.2021, an order was passed in the

case and it was fixed for the revisionist's evidence. On

the next date, i.e. on 02.03.2021, the revisionist did not

adduce any evidence, and an application for

adjournment was moved, which was rejected and the

court closed the opportunity of adducing evidence to the

revisionist. Thereafter, the next date fixed was

15.03.2021. On that date also, the revisionist did not

adduce any evidence. In fact, arguments were not

advanced on behalf of the revisionist.

9. It is a revision. The scope of the revision is

quite restrictive to the extent of examining the

correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned

judgment and order.

10. In the instant case, the private respondent

has supported her case in her evidence. Her statement

has been supported by the statement of PW2, Sadhu

Ram Dhiman. As stated, PW3, Rajpal Saini, has not

been cross-examined. The revisionist did not adduce any

evidence. In fact, whatever assertions were made by the

revisionist in his objections, have not been substantiated

by the evidence. The court below, after considering the

material on record, passed the impugned order. This

Court does not see any error, illegality or impropriety in

the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, this Court

does not see any reason to make any interference.

Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

11. The revision is dismissed.

12. Let a copy of this judgment along with the

lower court record be forwarded to the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.03.2023 Ravi Bisht