Uttarakhand High Court
Anil Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 7 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2024
Anil Chand ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
judgment and order dated 04.12.2023, passed in Misc.
Criminal Case No. 113 of 2022, Nisha Chand Vs. Anil
Chand, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Khatima,
District Udham Singh Nagar. ("the Case"). By it, an
application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent
no.2 has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed
to Rs.5000/- per month as interim maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed by the
respondent no.2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. According to it, the revisionist and the
respondent no.2 were married on 07.05.2007. But, after
marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in
connection with demand of dowry. The revisionist was
working in China. Whenever he would come, he would still
join his family members and harass and torture the
respondent no.2. The revisionist has shown himself as
unmarried in his passport. He has not entered the name of
the respondent no.2 as his wife in any of his record.
According to the respondent no.2, she is not able to
maintain herself, whereas the revisionist works in a casino
in China and earns Rs.1 Lakh per month. The respondent
no.2 also filed an application for interim maintenance.
4. The application filed by the respondent no.2 was
objected to by the revisionist on the ground that even after
marriage the respondent no.2 had attachment with her in-
laws. She was more inclined towards her parents. She also
lodged report in Police and has lodged various cases against
her in-laws. According to the revisionist, he wants to keep
his wife with him, therefore, he filed a suit for restitution of
conjugal rights. He has left the job in China and he is now
unemployed, whereas the private respondent is highly
educated, she does not need any maintenance.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist is unemployed. He is dependent on his
elder brother. Earlier he was working in the casino in China,
but now he has returned.
6. Admittedly, the parties are legally married to each
other. The court below has taken into consideration, the
condition of the parties. The respondent no.2 stays separate
from her in-laws. She has own reasons for staying separate.
The revisionist claims that he is still willing to keep his wife
with him. The reasons for separate staying would find
deliberation once parties adduce their evidence. It is also
admitted to the revisionist that he had worked in China for
some time, but he has come back now. It is not an assertion
of the revisionist that he is not an able bodied person. He is
35 years of age. The interim maintenance amount is
Rs.5000/- per month.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no reason to make any interference in the impugned
order. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at
the stage of admission itself.
8. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.03.2024
Jitendra
