Uttarakhand High Court
Jai Prakash Shukla vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 15 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.338 of 2024
Jai Prakash Shukla ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ......... Respondents
Mr. Mehboob Rahi and Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocates for the
revisionist.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder
for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to an
order dated 21.02.2024, passed in Case No.112 of 2023,
Smt. Babita vs. Jai Prakash Shukla, by the court of
Judge, Family Court, Haridwar ("the case"). By which,
an application for interim maintenance has been allowed
and the revisionist has been directed to pay `15,000/-
per month to the respondent no.2 as interim
maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The revisionist and the respondent no.2,
both are husband and wife. The respondent no.2 is
staying separate. She filed an application for
maintenance inter alia on the ground that after
marriage, the revisionist abused and beat her under
intoxication. She is staying separate, she is not able to
maintain herself, whereas the revisionist works as a
Senior Technical in BHEL and earns more than
`1,10,000/- as salary. In the case, an application for
interim maintenance has also been filed, which is
objected to by the revisionist inter alia the revisionist
never did any maar peet with the respondent no.2.
4. It is the case of the revisionist that, in fact,
respondent no.2 takes fights quite often and due to her
own conduct, she is staying separate. She is highly
educated, who can maintain herself. After hearing the
parties, by the impugned order, the court awarded
`15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the
respondent no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the respondent no.2 is staying in the same
house where the revisionist is staying, although the
respondent no.2 claims that she is staying separate
since 2021. Thereafter, both, the revisionist and the
respondent no.2 together purchased certain properties;
the revisionist has paid about `1,92,000/- to the
respondent no.2 in the year 2021. It is argued that this
amount is given as maintenance.
6. Parties are staying separate. This is what
has been written by the revisionist. The reasons which
the revisionist has assigned is that due to her own
conduct, the respondent no.2 is staying separate,
whereas as per the respondent no.2, she was harassed
and tortured in the house of the revisionist at the
relevant time. Therefore, she compelled to stay separate.
7. It is a stage of interim maintenance. The
Court would be in a position to conclude finally once
parties are able to adduce their evidences. Admittedly,
the revisionist works and gets `59,642/- per month
salary, this is what is admitted by the revisionist. It has
been the case of the respondent no.2 that she does not
earn anything. Even if, the revisionist has paid some
amount in the year 2021 for maintenance, it establishes
that, in fact, the respondent no.2 is in a need of
maintenance.
8. The Court wanted to know from the learned
counsel for the revisionist, as to what amount he did pay
post 2021? There is no reply to it.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that the interim order is in
accordance with law. It does not require any
interference. Accordingly, the instant revision deserves
to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
10. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
15.05.2024
Sanjay
