Uttarakhand High Court
Kshitiz Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2024
Kshitiz Kumar ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Vikas Sharma, Mr. Sumit Rana and Mr. Karan Kathayat, Advocates
for the revisionist.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order of interim maintenance dated 12.12.2023,
passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 190 of 2023, Smt.
Sugandha Malhotra Vs. Kshitiz Kumar, by the court of
Family Judge, Haldwani, District Nainnital ("the case").
By the impugned order, while allowing the interim
maintenance application filed by the respondent no.2,
the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 19,000/- per
month interim maintenance to the respondent no.2,
Sugandha Malhotra.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. It appears that the respondent no.2 filed an
application seeking maintenance from the revisionist.
According to her, she and the revisionist were married
on 24.04.2022, but she has been expelled from her
matrimonial house; she is not able to maintain herself,
whereas, the revisionist earns Rs. 3 Lakhs per month.
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 never treated with cruelty; no marpeet was done
with her. It is she, who left the matrimonial house on
27.10.2022 along with her jewellery; she helps her
family business and she is also working on various
projects of interior designing. The revisionist has also
stated in his objections that he simply works as a care
taker in the business of her mother. His income is
fluctuating.
5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
order, the court held that, in fact, the respondent no.2 is
not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist's
per month income is assessed as Rs. 1 Lakh 50
thousand.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the finding recorded is not based on law. He
would submit that the court below has taken into
consideration the matrimonial profile, which was
prepared in the year 2021. But, thereafter, it is argued
that prior to the marriage of the revisionist, his father
expired. Two units of their business had been shut
down; only one unit was working. At the relevant time,
in the year 2021, the income of the revisionist was
though much, but it has been lowered significantly after
loss of business when his father expired. It is also
argued that, in fact, the respondent no.2 has been
working on certain projects of interior designing and she
also helps her family business.
7. By the impugned order, the court has not
finally adjudicated the rights, responsibilities or
liabilities of the parties. It is a decision on the interim
maintenance application. Admittedly the revisionist and
the respondent no.2 are husband and wife. They stayed
together, as such, for a long. Now, they are separated.
There are divergent reasons assigned by the revisionist
and the respondent no.2 with regard to the respondent
no.2 staying separate. On the one hand, according to the
respondent no.2, she was treated cruelly. That is why
she is staying separate. On the other hand, according to
the revisionist, it is the respondent no.2, who herself has
left her matrimonial house. The actual reason would be
ascertained when parties are permitted to lead their
evidence.
8. According to the respondent no.2, she is
not able to maintain herself. The revisionist did not bring
any record to even reveal that the respondent no.2 is, in
any manner, earning for her livelihood.
9. In internal page 3, paragraph no.2 of the
impugned order, the court has assessed the income of
the revisionist. The impugned order was passed on
12.12.2023. The court has taken note of the prolife of
the revisionist, as made on the matrimonial website,
where, admittedly, the revisionist has shown his income
as Rs. 25-30 Lakhs per annum.
10. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that
the revisionist works in a business and gets about Rs. 3
Lakhs per month. At the stage of decision of interim
maintenance application, the court has to examine the
issue on the basis of the documents that are filed by the
parties and also by taking into consideration the
attending circumstances. That is what has been done by
the court below. Having considered all the attending
factors, the court had assessed the income of the
revisionist as Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and granted Rs.
19,000/- per month interim maintenance to the
respondent no.2. This amount of maintenance, in any
manner, cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law.
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.
11. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.03.2024
Ravi Bisht
