Uttarakhand High Court
Naubahar Alias Sonu vs Smt. Meenu on 9 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.326 of 2024
Naubahar alias Sonu ...........Revisionist
Vs.
Smt. Meenu ......... Respondent
Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the revisionist.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order dated 08.04.2024, passed in Criminal Case
No.495 of 2022, Smt. Meenu vs. Naubahar alias Sonu,
by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun
("the case"). By which, the revisionist has been directed
to pay `5,000/- per month to his wife ("the respondent")
as interim maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The record reveals that the proceeding of
the case was initiated on an application filed by the
respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. According to it, the parties were
married on 22.02.2019, but after marriage the
respondent was harassed and tortured in connection
with demand of dowry. There were some compromises
between them also. But, it had been the claim of the
respondent that the revisionist and his family members
continued harassing the respondent and finally, expelled
her from her matrimonial home on 18.07.2021. She is
not able to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist is a
man of means, who gets more than `80,000/- per
month.
4. In the case, an application for interim
maintenance has also been filed seeking `50,000/- per
month as interim maintenance. According to the
revisionist, it is the conduct of the respondent, which
had created chaos in the family; the respondent would
abuse the family members and threatened them to
implicate in the false cases and on small pretext she
would call police.
5. It is the case of the revisionist that the
respondent is staying separate from him of her own
without any reason. She is not entitled for maintenance,
whereas the revisionist is unemployed and he only helps
his father in the agricultural work.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the reason for filing the revision is that in
her affidavit, the respondent has wrongly given her age.
She is 36 years of age, whereas she has given her age 32
years.
7. For the stated reason, the revision may not
be admitted. If a wrong affidavit is given or something
false has been filed before the court, the revisionist is
always at liberty to seek such remedy, as is permissible
under law.
8. The respondent has claimed maintenance
as wife. She has stated that she is staying separate
because she has been compelled to stay separate by her
husband i.e. the revisionist. She is not able to maintain
herself, whereas the revisionist is a man of means. The
award of maintenance is @ `5,000/- per month. It is
definitely a kind of minimum interim maintenance that
could be awarded under the facts and circumstances of
the case.
9. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that there is no reason to entertain the criminal revision.
Accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
10. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.05.2024
Sanjay
