Uttarakhand High Court
Unesh Ansari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 25 November, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 385 of 2021
Unesh Ansari ........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ........Respondents
Present:-
Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Arjun Arora, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Abhishek
Verma, Advocate for the respondent no.2
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
judgment and order dated 27.08.2021, passed in Criminal
Case No. 225 of 2018, Smt. Shama Ansari Vs. Sri Unesh
Ansari, by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dehradun ("the case"). By it, an application under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code")
filed respondent no.2 has been allowed and the revisionist
has been directed to pay Rs.18,000/- per month as
maintenance to the respondent no.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed under
Section 125 of the Code by the respondent no.2, according
to which, she and the revisionist were married on
05.11.2016. But, after marriage, she was harassed and
tortured by the revisionist and his family members for and
in connection with demand of dowry. It has been the case
of the respondent no.2 that the revisionist had relations
with some other woman, whom he has kept in a rented flat.
He also maintains that woman. Due to harassment and
torture extended to the respondent no.2, according to her,
on 17.03.2018, she left the matrimonial home and staying
with her parents. She has no means to survive, whereas, the
revisionist runs a medical shop and earns more than Rs.1
Lakh per month. This application has been objected to by
the revisionist.
4. The marriage between the parties is admitted.
But, it is the case of the revisionist that the respondent no.2
has been insisting to stay in Dehradun and on 17.03.2018,
she on her own left the matrimonial home without any
reason. It has been the case of the revisionist that he is
ready and willing to keep the respondent no.2 with him, but
she is not agreeable to it. She is an educated woman.
5. In the evidence, the respondent no.2 examined
herself and the revisionist also appeared as a witness.
6. This is a revision. The scope of revision is quite
limited to the extent of examining the correctness, legality,
or propriety of the impugned judgment and order.
7. The only argument that has been made is with
regard to the quantum of maintenance. It is admitted that
interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.12,000/- per month
was granted to the respondent no.2 which the revisionist
had paid.
8. Today also, learned counsel for the revisionist
would submit that the revisionist would pay Rs.12,000/-
per month as maintenance to the respondent no.2, but
since he has second wife & parents, he is not in a position
to pay Rs.18,000/- per month as maintenance.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 would submit that the impugned judgment
and order is in accordance with law. He would submit that
the revisionist has no other financial liability. The revisionist
had concealed facts in the court below.
10. The impugned judgment and order is quite in
detail. The court below has discussed the evidence and the
material which has been placed before the court. Initially, it
has been the case of the revisionist that he works in a
chemist shop and earns Rs.6000/- per month. This was
found false. Even otherwise, if a person is earning
Rs.6000/- per month, he could not have paid Rs.12,000/-
per month as interim maintenance, which, admittedly the
revisionist had paid. In fact, in para 27 of the impugned
judgment and order, the court has on its own taken down
the printout from the website and found that the revisionist
runs Uttarakhand Medical Store in his own name. The court
had observed that the revisionist had concealed his
occupation. He has also stated that he is not an income tax
payee, but in his cross examination, he has admitted that
he is income tax payee. Considering all the facts, the court
has assessed the income of the revisionist as Rs. 75,000/-
per month and accordingly, awarded Rs.18,000/- per month
to the respondent no.2
11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded
by the court below is based on legally admissible evidence.
There is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly,
the revision deserves to be dismissed.
12. The revision is dismissed accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
25.11.2024
Jitendra
JITEN Digitally signed by JITENDRA
MOHAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
DRA
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=37ab5a6b937d1cb8
08b25c98e5f1910659e56c326
81f01c86d3b1269de764ccd,
postalCode=263001,
MOH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=498DD7949DE
405D81969F2C9B5006DC381
D64442A544D1F24244EDCC8
5DB277D, cn=JITENDRA
AN
MOHAN
Date: 2024.11.29 11:04:47
+05'30'
