Uttarakhand High Court
Chetan Prakash Alias Chetanya Prakash vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 1 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.272 of 2024
Chetan Prakash alias Chetanya Prakash ........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another .............Respondents
Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
Judgment and order dated 27.02.2024, passed in Misc.
Criminal Case No.210 of 2023, Smt. Parlavi Vs. Chetan
Prakash, by the court of Judge, Family Court 1st,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). By
which, the revisionist has been directed to pay `8,000/-
per month to his wife ("private respondent") as interim
maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, by which, the private respondent sought
maintenance from the revisionist. It has been the case of
the private respondent that after marriage, she was
harassed by the revisionist and her in-laws in connection
with demand of dowry. She was expelled from her
matrimonial house. They also attempted to kill her. There
were Panchayat in between. Finally, on 27.04.2022, the
private respondent was expelled from her matrimonial
home. She has been staying in her parental house.
4. With regard to the maintenance, it is the case
of the private respondent that she is not able to maintain
herself, whereas the revisionist gets `60,000/- per month
from the Railway Department where he serves. He has
other income also.
5. In the case, an application for interim
maintenance was filed, which was objected to by the
private respondent. It has been the case of the revisionist
that the marriage took place in a very simple manner
during COVID-19 Pandemic. The private respondent is able
to maintain herself, whereas due to harassment to the
revisionist, his increments have been stopped. The
revisionist has responsibility of his old aged parents and a
younger brother. The private respondent was never
harassed in the house of the revisionist.
6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
order, the court below directed the revisionist to pay
`8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the private
respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the award of maintenance is on higher side. He
would submit that the revisionist has the responsibility of
his old aged parents and his younger brother. The private
respondent also earns by running a shop. It is also argued
that the private respondent is staying separate without any
reasonable cause.
8. What is the cause for staying separate, there
are divergent claims made by both the parties. It will find
scrutiny once parties are permitted to give evidence.
The fact remains that the private respondent is staying
separate from her husband. In the impugned order, the
court below has considered the means of private
respondent and held that there is no evidence on record in
support of the claim made by the revisionist that the
private respondent is able to maintain herself. In so far as
the income of the revisionist is concerned, the admitted
salary of the revisionist is `20,300/- has been taken as
income of the revisionist and based on it, interim
maintenance has been granted.
9. Whatever reasoning given by the court below
is as per law. The award of maintenance, by no stretch of
imagination may be termed as excessive. Therefore, there is
no occasion to entertain the instant revision. Accordingly,
the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
10. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.05.2024
Sanjay
