Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Sunita Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.528 of 2023
Smt. Sunita Bhatt .....Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.
Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for the
informant.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the order
dated 24.05.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No.57 of 2022, Smt. Sunita Bhatt vs. Girish Chandra Bhatt,
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
("the Code") by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital ("the case").
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. It appears that the revisionist and respondent no.2,
both were married on 30.04.2021. But after marriage, there
was some dispute between the parties, therefore, the revisionist
filed an application under Section 125 of the Code. According
to the revisionist, she was tortured and harassed in connection
with demand of dowry. She is not able to maintain herself.
She is staying separate from her husband, the respondent
no.2. Therefore, she sought maintenance which is basis of the
case. In the case, an application for interim maintenance has
also been filed, which has been rejected by the impugned
order.
4. The application for interim maintenance was
objected by the respondent no.2, inter alia, on the grounds that
he is ready and willing to keep his wife (revisionist) with him.
It has also been the case of respondent no.2 that the revisionist
is highly qualified and having qualification of M.Sc. and B.Ed.
She teaches in some private school. According to respondent
no.2, the revisionist can maintain herself.
5. The parties were married on 30.04.2021. The court
in the impugned order records that since the revisionist did not
file any bank statement, it reflects that she is not willing to
disclose entire facts. The Court had taken judicial noticethat a
person who is M.Sc. and B.Ed. and who had been teaching in
the past, must have been earning in present also. By
observing so, the application for interim maintenance filed by
the revisionist was rejected by the court below.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist was never required to file Bank statements.
She was never advised to do so. It is argued that whatever job,
the revisionist had done that was done prior to marriage. It is
argued that the matter may be remanded to the court below for
hearing a fresh after permitting the revisionist to file the bank
statement.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit
that the revisionist failed to file her bank statements. She was
doing some job and she is concealing it.
8. Admittedly, the court below did not have any
document to reveal that the revisionist has been working at the
relevant point to time. The record which was before the court
relates to the period prior to her marriage, when the revisionist
was working in some school as a teacher. The court presumed
the fact that a person who is M.Sc. B.Ed. & who had been
teaching in the past, must have been earning in the present.
9. This Court is of the view that perhaps such
presumption is beyond the limits of presumption. It cannot be
presumed that a person who is qualified must have the means
to survive. If the revisionist has not filed her bank statement
the court below could have asked her to submit her bank
statement and thereafter the matter could have been decided.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter has to
be remanded to the court below for decision afresh after
affording an opportunity to the revisionist to file all the bank
statements.
10. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the court below for decision afresh after
affording an opportunity to the revisionist to file the bank
statements.
11. The revision is allowed accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.05.2024
Ravi
