Uttarakhand High Court
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.267 of 2024
Naveen Kumar ........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .............Respondents
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, 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
order dated 11.03.2024, passed in Case No.10 of 2022,
Smt. Laxmi vs. Naveen Kumar, by the court of Judge,
Family Court, Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist
has been directed to pay `10,000/- per month to his wife
(the respondent no.2) and `4,000/- per month to each of
the children i.e. respondent nos.3 and 4, as interim
maintenance. In all, the revisionist has been directed to
pay `18,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to the
private respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the
Code"), filed by the respondent no.2 seeking maintenance
from the revisionist. According to the respondent no.2, she
and the revisionist were married on 27.04.2008. But, after
marriage, she was harassed and tortured by the revisionist.
The revisionist and his family members also tried to kill the
respondent no.2. She has been staying separate. She has
no means to maintain herself, whereas according to her,
the revisionist is an employee and gets `70,000/- per
month. In the case, an application for interim maintenance
has also been filed. It has been objected to by the
revisionist. According to the revisionist, the respondent
no.2 has a lot of property. She does not need any
maintenance amount.
4. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
order dated 11.03.2024, the revisionist has been directed
to pay the maintenance. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist is
before this Court.
5. In fact, the order by which, the revisionist has
been directed to pay maintenance was passed on
19.03.2024. The matter was heard on 11.03.2024. The
revisionist has challenged the order dated 11.03.2024. It
appears to be the typographical error. The challenge is, in
fact, made to order dated 19.03.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 is bad
in the eyes of law. He would submit that the respondent
no.2 has got a lot of property in her name. In her earlier
affidavit, the respondent no.2 did conceal her property. It is
only when the revisionist filed an affidavit, he revealed that
the respondent no.2 is a wealthy woman. Thereafter, she
admitted her property.
7. It is a revision. The scope is quite limited to the
extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety
of an impugned judgment, decree or order. Evidence
generally, is not evaluated in a revision unless the finding
is perverse i.e. it is without any evidence or irrelevant
material has been considered or relevant material has been
ignored.
8. It is not in dispute that the revisionist is the
husband of respondent no.2 and they have two children i.e.
the respondent nos.3 and 4. It is also not disputed at this
stage that the respondent no.2 is staying separate from the
revisionist along with her two children (the respondent
nos.3 and 4). The revisionist has not disputed his income.
The court below based on the documents assessed that the
monthly salary of the revisionist is `58,222/-.
9. The question is, as to whether the respondent
no.2 is able to maintain herself? In para 06 of the
impugned order, the court below has discussed this aspect.
It has been held by the court that the respondent no.2 has
some property, she is owner of it. But, the court observed
that mere being owner of some property cannot infer that
the respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself. It is not on
record, whether she is earning from such property, which
she owned? This finding cannot be said to be perverse.
There is no evidence produced on behalf of the revisionist
revealing that the respondent no.2 is earning from the
property, which she owns.
10. After assessing the factors necessary for
determining the maintenance, the court below has directed
the revisionist to pay `18,000/- per month to the
respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 as interim maintenance. The
award of maintenance, by no stretch of imagination may be
termed as excessive. Therefore, there is no reason to
entertain the instant revision. Accordingly, the revision
deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
11. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
02.05.2024
Sanjay
