Uttarakhand High Court
Chandrashekhar Chandra 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. 855 of 2023
Chandrashekhar Chandra ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to
the order of interim maintenance dated 05.09.2023,
passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 180 of 2023, Smt.
Alka Saxena Vs. Chandrashekhar Chandra, by the court
of Family Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital ("the case").
By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.
5,000/- per month, as maintenance, to the respondent
no.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
and perused the record.
3. It appears that the respondent no.2, who is
the wife of the revisionist, filed an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
("the Code") claiming maintenance from the revisionist,
which is the basis of the case. According to the
respondent no.2, she and the revisionist were married
on 08.02.2023, but after marriage, she was harassed
and tortured for and in connection with the demand of
dowry, and finally, she was expelled from her
matrimonial home on 19.04.2023. Thereafter, the
revisionist did not take any care of her. She is not able
to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist is a man of
means. In the case, an application for interim
maintenance has also been filed.
4. The revisionist filed his objections.
According to him, no demand of dowry was ever made
from the respondent no.2. It is argued that, in fact, it is
the respondent no.2, who would leave the matrimonial
house and threaten to commit suicide. She would take
quarrels on small issues and, she, on her own, has left
the company of the revisionist. According to the
revisionist, the respondent no.2 works as a teacher in a
school, whereas,, the revisionist only assists his father
in his business.
5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
order, the court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.
5,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the condition of the revisionist is not good;
his financial position is much weak; sensing it, the
respondent no.2 does not want to stay with him.
Therefore, she, on her own, has left his company.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2
would submit that the revisionist helps in the business
of his father from morning to late evening. Therefore, he
is a man of means.
8. By the impugned order, the court has not
finally decided the rights and liabilities of the parties.
What the court has decided is an application for interim
maintenance. Admittedly, the revisionist and the
respondent no.2 have divergent claims with regard to the
respondent no.2 staying separate. On the one hand,
according to the respondent no.2, she is harassed,
tortured and expelled from her matrimonial house on
19.04.2023. On the other hand, according to the
revisionist, it is the respondent no.2, who would take
quarrels and who, on her own, left the company of the
revisionist. What is the reason, that would be finally
concluded by the court below once the parties are
permitted to adduce their evidence.
9. There was no evidence before the court
below that the respondent no.2 is able to maintain
herself, whereas, the court below has assessed the
income of the revisionist as Rs. 15,000/- per month,
which, under the facts and circumstances of the case, is
much modest.
10. Having considered, this Court does not see
any reason to make any interference in this revision.
Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed, at the
stage of admission itself.
11. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
15.05.2024
Ravi Bisht
