Bhupendra Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1835 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Bhupendra Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 8 August, 2025

                                                                       2025:UHC:6993



                                               Judgment Reserved On: 01.08.2025
                                             Judgment Pronounced On: 08.08.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                  Criminal Revision No.638 of 2022

Bhupendra Singh Rawat                                               ...Revisionist

                                       Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.                                       ...Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Rawat, revisionist, party-in-person
Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy A.G. with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. and Mr. J.P.
Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hon'ble Shri Justice Subhash Upadhyay, J.

This criminal revision has been preferred

against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 passed

by Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal in Misc.

Criminal Case No.78 of 2021, whereby the application

filed by respondent no.2-wife under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist-husband was

directed to pay ₹ 15,000/- per month to respondent no.2

towards maintenance allowance from the date of filing of

the application i.e. 21.09.2021.

2. An application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by

respondent no.2-wife before the Judge, Family Court,

Kotdwar, seeking interim maintenance. As per the

2025:UHC:6993

contents of application filed by respondent no.2, the

marriage between the revisionist and respondent no.2

was held on 6/7.5.2017 at Kotdwar; after the marriage,

family members of the revisionist started raising the

demand of Swift car in dowry for which respondent no.2

was subjected to mental and physical torture; revisionist

was working in Qatar Airlines and during his stay at

abroad, he used to make taunts to respondent no.2 for

not bringing Swift Car in dowry; in October, 2019 due to

death of revisionist's father, revisionist came back to

India; since 07.12.2020, revisionist started working from

home; during his stay at Qatar he had developed physical

relations with various boys; when this fact was brought

to the notice of family members of respondent no.2, then

her father came at her house and informed family

members of revisionist on which family members make

taunts for not bringing car and ousted her and her father

from the house; since 14.09.2021 respondent no.2

started residing with her parents.

3. Respondent no.2 as such contended that due

to harassment caused by revisionist, her health

deteriorated and she was not in a position to do any work

and was residing with her parents and, hence, claimed

maintenance of Rs.1,50,000/- per month on the basis of

2025:UHC:6993

earning of revisionist @ Rs.3,00,000/- per month. She

also contended that revisionist has purchased a plot in

his name on 05.01.2021 and is also having his share in

the parental property.

4. The revisionist filed reply to the said

application and denied the charges/allegation made

against him. In his reply, revisionist contended that

respondent no.2 was pressurizing him to record

residence at Kotdwar in her name and that she used to

abuse his mother and sister and also used to send

offensive messages to them. Revisionist stated that

earlier he was working in Qatar Airlines in catering

department but on 29.11.2020 he was removed from

service whereafter he came to India on 07.12.2020 and

since then he was out of job.

5. Revisionist also stated that due to undue

pressure created by respondent no.2 through police

authorities, his passport was seized and as such he could

not go to Germany for job. He also denied the allegation

of demand of dowry made by him or his family members

and contended that respondent no.2 is residing in her

parental house as per her own wish and in fact it is

respondent no.2 who has deserted him. It was further

contended that the case u/s 498A of IPC and 3/4 of

2025:UHC:6993

Dowry Prohibition Act was also filed by respondent no.2

against him. He further contended that there is no land

in his name at Kumbhichaur, Kotdwar and he is

dependent on his mother and the respondent no.2 is in

fact earning ₹25,000/- per month from tuitions.

6. Learned Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar

recorded that efforts were made for reconciliation

between the parties but reconciliation could not be done

and as such the case was heard on merits.

7. On the basis of pleadings and the evidence

adduced by the parties, learned Judge, Family Court,

Kotdwar came to the conclusion that respondent no.2 is

the legally wedded wife of revisionist and is residing at

her parental house and is having no source of income

and is dependent on the revisionist for her maintenance.

It was further recorded that revisionist is having

adequate means, however, he has deprived respondent

no.2 from maintenance. It was also recorded that

revisionist had taken no steps for bringing her back to

his house and as such it was held that respondent no.2

is residing at her parental house for justifiable reasons.

8. Learned Judge, Family Court, on the basis of

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case

of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2020) SCC Online SC

2025:UHC:6993

903 asked the parties to file their respective affidavits,

regarding their income and liabilities, and on the basis of

the documentary evidence filed by the parties and

evidence recorded, learned Court recorded a finding that

revisionist had purchased a plot at Kotdwar on

05.01.2021 and on the basis of the bank statement

which were filed for a period from 30.04.2019 to

10.12.2020 it was concluded that on a monthly basis an

amount of ₹ 1.00 lac to ₹ 2.00 lacs was being either

deposited or withdrawn from the said account. It was

also observed that the latest bank details were not filed

by the revisionist as such it was inferred that the

revisionist is concealing his income. With regard to the

income of respondent no.2, it was recorded that on the

basis of the affidavit filed by her she was having no

source of income and was fully dependent on her

parents. As such, the Family Court, vide judgment dated

15.09.2022, allowed the application filed by respondent

no.2 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to

pay maintenance @ ₹15,000/- per month to respondent

no.2 from the date of making the application i.e.

21.09.2021.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the entire record.

2025:UHC:6993

10. The revisionist, who appeared in person,

contended that he is out of job since 07.12.2020 and

after decrease of Corona pandemic he had tried to find a

job, however, as his passport was seized by the police

authorities at the instigation of respondent no.2, as such

he is still unemployed. He contended that the said fact

was stated before the Family Court and has also been

stated in the affidavit filed in the present revision. He

also contended that at present he is only earning

₹15,000/- per month.

11. Vide order dated 19.06.2025, revisionist was

directed to file an affidavit specifying the amount paid by

him and, in response, he had filed the affidavit specifying

that he has paid ₹ 3,46,000 to respondent no.2 after the

order dated 15.09.2022 and has admitted the fact that he

has purchased a plot on 05.01.2021, however, he gifted

the said plot to his mother. Revisionist submitted that he

had, in fact, offered the said plot to respondent no.2,

however, she had refused to accept the same and the

said fact is also recorded in the order dated 12.09.2024

passed by Hon'ble Court in FA No.180/2023.

12. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for

respondent no.2 submitted that till date an amount of ₹

3,25,000 is outstanding and in criminal misc. Execution

2025:UHC:6993

case no.56/2024 and 36/2025 an amount of ₹ 1,60,000

and ₹1,65,000 was shown due, however, the learned

Judge, Family Court had recalled the warrant issued

against the revisionist only on a deposit made by him of ₹

5,000/- As such, still ₹ 3,20,000/- is due on the

revisionist.

13. With regard to the refusal of acceptance of offer

of plot at Kotdwar, it was submitted that it was settled

between the parties that the revisionist will give the plot

to respondent no.2 and will also return all the ornaments

lying with him but as he had agreed to give only the plot,

as such the said offer was refused by respondent no.2. It

was further submitted that in the proceedings in

Domestic Violence Act, revisionist had admitted the fact

that he is in possession of the ornaments and the case

under the Domestic Violence Act was decided in favour of

respondent no.2, against which appeal preferred by the

revisionist was also dismissed, which subsequently was

challenged in C482 petition no.2504/2023.

14. It has been contended on behalf of respondent

no.2 that when the said plot of the revisionist was to be

attached in the execution proceedings then a gift deed

was registered by the revisionist in favour of his mother.

15. The scope of interference in the criminal

2025:UHC:6993

revision is limited. The finding of fact recorded by the

learned Judge, Family Court is based on the pleadings

made by the parties and the evidence adduced before it.

The Court, in criminal revision, cannot re-appreciate the

entire evidence and only has to see the illegality, if any,

committed by the Family Court. The learned Judge,

Family Court, has taken into consideration the fact that

the revisionist was having adequate means to support the

respondent no.2, however, he had failed to discharge his

duties and, thus, the respondent no.2 is entitled to get

maintenance @ ₹ 15,000/- per month.

16. A perusal of record also reveals that the

revisionist is taking different stands at different stages. In

his reply filed on 04.01.2022 to the application u/s 125

of Cr.P.C., revisionist had stated that his passport was

seized by the police authorities on the instigation of

respondent no.2 and that he was not having any plot at

Khumbichaur, Kotdwar. Thus, the revisionist was

denying the fact of purchase of plot at Khumbhichaur,

Kotdwar at the initial stage when a reply was filed by him

on 04.01.2022 before the Judge, Family Court. It is an

admitted fact that the plot was purchased by him on

05.01.2021 much before the filing of the application u/s

125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent no.2 on 21.09.2021. The

2025:UHC:6993

said fact of purchase of plot on 05.01.2021 was also

proved before the Family Court. Similarly, at the initial

stage, the revisionist contended that on the instigation of

respondent no.2 his passport was seized by the police

authorities and the said fact was also stated in the reply

dated 04.01.2022 filed by the revisionist before the

Judge, Family Court. The said fact was also stated in the

affidavit filed by the revisionist before this Court on

15.10.2022, however, in a subsequent affidavit filed in

July, 2025, it has been stated that his passport was lost.

The revisionist had also not filed any latest bank

statement before the Judge, Family Court. Thus, it is

clear that the revisionist had stated wrong facts before

this Court as well as the Family Court.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court

does not find any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness

in the impugned judgment. The revision lacks merits and

the same is hereby dismissed.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 08.08.2025 Rajni

RAJINI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3 701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,

GUSAIN postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4F C80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A 878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.08.08 14:50:19 +05'30'