Uttarakhand High Court
Amrit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2024
Amrit Kumar ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Kailash Chandra, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder 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 07.03.2024,
passed in Criminal Case No. 10 of 2023, Smt. Kavita Vs.
Amirt Kumar, by the court of Family Judge, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per
month interim relief to the respondent no.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. The record reveals that the respondent
no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the revisionist
seeking maintenance, which is the basis of the case. In
the case, an application for interim maintenance has
also been filed by the respondent no.2, inter alia, on the
ground that due to harassment given at the hands of the
revisionist; the respondent no.2 is unwell; she cannot
maintain herself. Whereas, the revisionist works as IT
Manager and gets Rs. 1.5 Lakhs as salary, and he also
gets Rs. 50,000/- as rent. The respondent no.2 had
demanded Rs. 50,000/- as interim maintenance.
4. It has been objected to the revisionist, inter
alia, on the ground that the respondent no.2 is an
educated woman and she also takes tuition; she is able
to maintain herself; she is staying in her father's house
on her own. The income, as stated by the respondent
no.2, has been denied by the revisionist. According to
the revisionist, he gets Rs. 40,000/- per month.
5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
order, the court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.
10,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist is ready and willing to keep
his wife, the respondent no.2, with him. He would also
submit that if attempts for mediation are made, perhaps,
the matter may be settled.
7. According to the respondent no.2, she and
the revisionist were married on 08.07.2022, but after
marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in
connection with the demand of dowry. Rs. 10 Lakhs and
a car were also demanded. The respondent no.2 has also
stated about the sexual orientation of the revisionist and
subsequent Panchayats that were conducted on
30.07.2022, when, it is the case of the respondent no.2,
she was expelled from her matrimonial house.
8. In his objections, the revisionist has denied
all these allegations. According to the revisionist, after
marriage, the respondent no.2 started abusing the
revisionist and threatening him to take her life.
According to the revisionist, on 29.07.2022, the
respondent no.2 left her matrimonial house without any
reason, though, it is stated that on 28.07.2022, there
were some disputes between the revisionist and the
respondent no.12.
9. By the impugned order, interim
maintenance has been awarded to the respondent no.2.
Admittedly, the income of the revisionist is Rs. 40,000/-
per month. In the impugned order, the further liability of
the revisionist has also been discussed. Thereafter, Rs.
10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance, has been
awarded to the respondent no.2. The court has also
discussed the reasons for staying separate and a
tentative finding has been recorded by the court below.
What is the actual reason for staying separate, it would
find scrutiny once parties are permitted to adduce their
evidence, a stage which is yet to come.
10. Insofar as the changes of amicable
settlement between the parties are concerned, it is
definitely a welcome move. If such a settlement is arrived
at, both the parties will be in a win-win situation. But
the case has yet not been decided by the court below.
Such a request may be made by the revisionist in the
court below, and this Court has no doubt that the court
below shall make all attempts for amicable settlement
between the parties through mediation, conciliation, etc.
11. Having considered, 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.
12. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.04.2024
Ravi Bisht
