A single judge bench of the Justice Ravindra Maithani of Uttarakhand HC has dimissed the revision application filed against the impugned order which fixed the cost of Rs. 7500 on revisionist.
However, they allowed the maintenance paid during the pendency to be adjusted with the due amount under the impugned order.
Facts:
The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 26.07.2022, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.14 of 2021, Smt. Ranjita and another vs. Sunil Singh Chauhan, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Tehri Garhwal (for short, “the recovery case”). The basis of the case is an application for maintenance, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) by the wife of the revisionist seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter the respondent no.2.
According to it, the revisionist and the mother of the respondent no.2 were married on 15.01.2008 and since thereafter, the wife of the revisionist was tortured in her in-laws’ house, due to which, she under compulsion, started staying separately with the respondent no.2. According to the wife of the revisionist, she is working on contract basis. The revisionist runs a shop, he has certain shops from which he is receiving rent; he has a car also, he is a man of means. The application was objected to.
By the impugned order, the application under Section 125 of the Code had been partly allowed, the wife of the revisionist has been denied maintenance on the ground that she is able to maintain herself, but the daughter of the parties, who is respondent no.2, has been granted `7,500/- per month maintenance. It is impugned herein. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that it is the responsibility of both, the revisionist and his wife to maintain their daughter; the revisionist alone cannot be held responsible for it
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the scope of the revsision is quite limited to the extent of examining legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order. Further, it is not in dispute that the revisionist is under obligation to maintain her minor daughterand she is not able to maintain herself. As per the statement the revisionist is a only son of his father and had taken shop from him on rent of Rs. 1000. Also, the sister of the revisionist in her cross-examination has stated that the revisionist also runs taxi.
The court below fixed the income of the revisions as `20,000/- per month by keeping in view all the attending factors into consideration like the fact that the revisionist runs a shop, he also runs taxi and thereafter, his income has been assessed. Therefore, by this court the assessment cannot be said to incorrect, improper or illegal and there is no merit in the revision and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. However, it has also been argued that the revisionist had been paying interim maintenance to his daughter during the pendency of the case. It definitely would be adjusted. The amount which had been paid by the revisionist to the respondent no.2, as interim maintenance shall be adjusted towards the amount which is due under the impugned judgment and order.
Decision:
The present revision application was dismissed by this court in absence of any further ground which can lead this court to show that the assessment of income by the lower court is not fair and the interim maintenance imposes according to that was unfair. However, the court ordered to adjust the interim maintenance paid during the pendency with the due under the impugned judgement.
Case: Sunil Kumar Chauhan vs State of Uttarakhand and another
Citation: Criminal Revision No. 652 of 2022
Coram: Justice Ravindra Maithani
Dated: 03.11.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
