Uttarakhand High Court
Vijay Bharat vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 519 of 2023
Vijay Bharat ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State.
Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and
3.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision has been preferred against the
order dated 18.01.2023, passed in Case No. 248 of 2021,
Saloni @ Sarika and another Vs. Vijay Bharat, by the court
of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been directed to pay total Rs.5000/- to the
private respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. A Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2023
has been filed. There is a delay of 100 days in filing the
revision. It is not objected to by the learned State counsel.
4. Having heard and considering the grounds for
delay, the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay
in filing the revision is condoned.
5. It appears that the respondent no.2 (wife) filed an
application seeking maintenance from the revisionist.
According to her, she has been staying separate as she was
harassed in her in-laws house for dowry. She has no means
to survive, where as the revisionist works in SIDCUL and
gets Rs. 35,000/- per month salary and he also earns from
other sources. Total Rs.25,000/- maintenance was sought
which is basis of the case.
6. In the case, an application for interim
maintenance was also filed. The revisionist objected to the
averments made by the respondent no.2. According to him,
the respondent no.2 was never harassed for dowry. She
earns about Rs.25,000/- from the parlor or boutique,
where as the revisionist is unemployed youth.
7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order,
the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as
maintenance to the respondent no.2 and Rs.2,000/- to the
respondent no.3 the daughter of the parties. Aggrieved by it,
the instant revision has been preferred.
8. Learned State counsel would submit that the
revisionist runs a grocery shop, which was earlier owned by
his father. The respondent no.2 has left her matrimonial
home on her own without any reason.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
would submit that the revisionist earns Rs.35,000/- per
month from a company and he has ancestral income also.
10. It is a revision. The scope is quite distinct to the
extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety
of the impugned judgment and order. In the impugned
order, the court has discussed quite in detail the means of
the respondent no.2 and held that she is not able to
maintain herself or her daughter the respondent no.3.
11. The source of income to the revisionist has also
been discussed by the court in the internal page 3 of the
impugned order. The court discussed quite in detail and
held that minimum Rs.15,000/- per month is the income of
the revisionist. Having considered the other factors, the
court has awarded total Rs.5000/- per month interim
maintenance to the private respondents.
12. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
the impugned order is based on law and facts. It does not
warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves
to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
13. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani,J.)
09.04.2024
Jitendra
