Uttarakhand High Court
Ravi Kant Sagar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 27 February, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2024
Ravi Kant Sagar ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. J.S. Khati, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. 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 16.01.2024,
passed in Criminal Case No. 104 of 2023, Smt. Anugya
Shaiwal Vs. Ravi Kant Sagar, by the court of Family
Judge, Dehradun ("the case"). By the impugned order,
the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- per
month interim relief to the respondent no.2, Smt.
Anugya Shaiwal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. It appears that the respondent no.2 filed an
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") seeking maintenance from
the revisionist. According to the respondent no.2, she
and the revisionist and were married on 27.02.2020, but
after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in
connection with the demand of dowry. She was beaten
up at Ballari, Karnataka, where the revisionist resides.
The respondent no.2 wanted to report the matter in the
month of June, 2021, but due to fear of the revisionist,
she could not dare to do so. According to the respondent
no.2, she is not able to maintain herself, though she is
highly qualified, whereas, it is stated that the revisionist
gets Rs. 1,50,000/- salary and he works in Jindal Steel
Works.
4. In the case, an application for interim relief
was also filed by the respondent no.2. The revisionist
filed objections. According to him, the respondent no.2
was not harassed and tortured for and in connection
with the demand of dowry. Instead, according to the
revisionist, it is the respondent no.2, who was behaving
in a weird manner. She would seek directions her
mother on small issues and had taken all social media
passwords of the revisionist. She has used the account
of the revisionist. The revisionist also denied that he gets
Rs. 1,50,000/- salary, instead he gets Rs. 70,000/-,
whereas, the respondent no.2 is highly educated person,
who can earn for her livelihood.
5. By the impugned order, the court below
held that the revisionist has means, despite that he has
neglected in giving maintenance to the respondent no.2,
and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 30,000/- per
month as interim maintenance.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the amount of maintenance is on higher
side. It is argued that the court below has not correctly
assessed the monthly income of the revisionist, which is
less that Rs. 1 Lakh, whereas, the Court had assumed
that the total salary of the revisionist is Rs. 1,13,784/-.
It is also argued that the revisionist has liability to
maintain his parents and two younger brothers. He
would also submit that the respondent no.2 is a well
educated person. She could earn and maintain herself. It
is also argued that the respondent no.2 is staying
separate without any reasonable cause.
7. The impugned order only decides the
amount of interim maintenance. At this stage, finally no
conclusion may be drawn either by the trial court or by
this Court. The factum of the marriage of the revisionist
and the respondent no.2 is admitted. It is also admitted
that they stayed together. It is today admitted that both
are living separate. There are divergent versions with
regard to the reasons of separation. On the one hand,
the private respondent claims that she was harassed and
tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry
in her in-laws house by the revisionist and others. On
the other hand, it is the claim made on behalf of the
revisionist that the respondent no.2 is staying separate
without any reasons. This would find adjudication after
parties adduce evidence.
8. Insofar as the income is concerned,
admittedly, the respondent no.2 is not earning anything,
though, she claims that she is highly educated. This fact
is not denied. But merely being highly qualified may not
deny maintenance to a person unless he or she earns for
his or her maintenance. The revisionist claims that his
salary has wrongly been assessed as Rs. 1,13,784/-
because it includes some allowances also.
9. In the revision, at Para 12, the revisionist
writes that his income is around Rs. 90,000/- per
month. In the impugned order, at Paragraphs 12 and 13,
a discussion at great length has been made with regard
to the income of the revisionist. The court has
considered the bank statement of the revisionist. The
court has observed that the revisionist deliberately did
not submit his latest payslip. The court records that in
the month of May, 2023, total Rs. 98,888/- salary was
deposited in the account of the revisionist, and in the
month of June, 2023, total Rs. 1,13,784/- were
deposited. What is being argued is that this Rs.
1,13,784/- also includes allowances. But, this is not
disputed that in the month of May, 2023, total 98,888/-
were deposited in the account of the revisionist.
10. In Para 13, the court has also assessed the
liability of the revisionist, and accordingly, assessed the
amount of interim maintenance.
11. This is a revision. The scope is restricted to
the extent of examining the legality, correctness and
propriety of the impugned judgment and order.
12. The impugned order, in the instant case is
well reasoned and is based on the material available on
record. The amount of maintenance that has been fixed
by the court below cannot be termed as excessive, as the
court below has considered the liability and social status
of the parties. Therefore, 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.
13. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.02.2024
Ravi Bisht
