Uttarakhand High Court
Mayank Garg vs Radhika Goyal on 24 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.820 of 2023
Mayank Garg .....Revisionist
Versus
Radhika Goyal .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Rishb Ranghar, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the
respondent.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the order
dated 30.09.2023, passed in Case No. 186 of 2022, Smt.
Radhika Goyal Vs. Mayank Garg, by the court of Judge,
Family Court, Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has
been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as interim
maintenance to the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The respondent has filed an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the
Code"), which is the basis of the case. According to the
respondent, she and the revisionist were married on
28.10.2020, but after the marriage, the revisionist did not
establish any physical relationship with her. The respondent
was harassed and tortured for the dowry and other reasons.
The respondent also stated that the revisionist had a
relationship with the servant in the family, due to which, the
servant had left thrice. According to the respondent, finally
she was expelled from her matrimonial home on 28.02.2023.
She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist
gets Rs.2,50,000/- per month, as he is a distributor and has a
major business house. He is income tax payer and has some
vehicles.
4. In the case, an application for interim maintenance
has also been filed. It has been objected to by the revisionist,
inter alia, on the ground that, in fact, the respondent was never
harassed and tortured. All the allegations have been denied.
5. It has been the case of the revisionist that, in fact,
the respondent herself had deserted the company of the
revisionist. She is able to maintain herself. She does
accounting work also. According to the revisionist, he earns
Rs.24,000/- per month. He is a proprietor of a firm; He has to
take care of his old age mother also.
6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order,
the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per
month.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the order is bad in the eyes of law. He would submit that
revisionist has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights
against the informant which has been decreed ex parte.
Despite, that the respondent did not join the company of the
revisionist. It is desertion without any reason. It is argued that
subsequent to it, the revisionist has filed a suit for divorce
because even after decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the
respondent did not join his company for the statutory period.
It is also argued that the income of the revisionist has been
assessed based on his Income Tax Return given in the year
2021, which is not lawful. It is argued that thereafter that the
income of the revisionist has decreased; the individual Income
Tax Return of the revisionist has not been taken into
consideration; the Income Tax Return of the firm of which the
revisionist is a proprietor has been considered by the Court.
8. The impugned order is quite in detail. There are
allegations from both sides with regard to the reasons for
staying separate of the respondent. The effect of ex parte
decree passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, has been noticed in the impugned order in para 9, when
the court below has referred to the judgment, in the case of
Babita vs. Munna Lal, (By the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
decision on 22.08.2022, Crl. Rev. P. 1001 of 2018) in which,
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has, inter alia, observed that the
effect of ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights per se
will not deny the claim of a wife under Section 125 of the Code.
9. The order which is impugned is not a final order at
this stage. The reasons for staying separate may conclusively
be determined, once parties are permitted to lead their
evidence. It is admitted that the revisionist runs a
proprietorship firm which means, he is the sole owner of it.
The income of the firm for the year 2021 has been shown at
Rs.6,25,606/-. The court below has assessed it as the income
of the year 2021, when it was Rs.9,053,686/-.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that this is a firm's income. The individual Income Tax Return
reveals that for the year 2023, the income of the revisionist was
about Rs.5 lacs. A proprietorship firm is nothing, but
individuals business in a name. Which means, in fact, the
income of the revisionist is much more than Rs.5 lacs. In his
objection, the revisionist writes that he earns Rs.24,000/- per
month. This statement does not merit any acceptance, for the
simple reason that admittedly the revisionist had been paying
Rs.2,50,000/- as premium for insurance. If a person earns
Rs.24,000/- per month, which means, he earns about
Rs.2,88,000/- per annum. He may not be in a position to
purchase life insurance, of which the premium is
Rs.2,50,000/-.
11. The court below has quite extensively discussed the
income and documents with regard to it and thereafter,
calculated the maintenance that is to be payable by the
revisionist.
12. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no illegality, impropriety or error in the impugned
order, therefore, no interference is warranted in the revision.
Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
13. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.05.2024
Ravi
