Uttarakhand High Court
Lakhvinder vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.325 of 2024
Lakhvinder ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ......... Respondents
Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate for the revisionist appeared through video
conferencing.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, AGA for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order dated 07.02.2024, passed in Case No.429 of
2022, Smt. Ruman vs. Lakhvinder, by the court of
Judge, Family Court Haridwar ("the case"). By which,
the revisionist has been directed to pay `5,000/- per
month to his wife ("respondent no.2") as interim
maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The record reveals that the respondent
no.2 filed an application seeking maintenance from the
revisionist under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. It had been the case of the wife that
due to harassment for dowry and atrocities, she has
been staying separate from the revisionist. She is not
able to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist is a
skilled worker. He gets `70,000/- per month from
welding works. He has welding works and he has
agricultural land also. The wife claims `25,000/- per
month as interim maintenance. In the case, an
application for interim maintenance has also been filed.
4. The application for interim maintenance
has been objected to by the revisionist inter alia on the
ground that demand of dowry was never been made and
the wife has been staying separate due to her own
conduct. It has been the case of the revisionist that he
has heard his wife talking in obscene manner with one
Shokeen. It has further been the case of the revisionist
that the wife know knitting and sewing, etc., whereas the
revisionist gets `300/- per day as labourer.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the wife is living in adultery. Therefore, she
is not entitled for maintenance.
6. In the impugned order, this fact has been
discussed quite in detail in para 8 by the court. What
has been the allegation of the revisionist is that his wife
has been talking over telephone to one Shokeen. The
court below has rightly posed a question, as to whether
the talking over telephone would amount to adultery?
Perhaps mere talking over telephone may not amount to
adultery. Is there anything more than that? There is
nothing on record. Perhaps the parties may adduce the
evidence; they may try to substantiate their claims.
7. Admittedly, the respondent no.2 is the wife
of the revisionist. She is staying separate. The parties
has divergent assertions with regard to the reasons of
staying separate. The court below has awarded `5,000/-
per month as interim maintenance. 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.
8. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.05.2024
Sanjay
