Ajay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 550 of 2017, Smt. Tanuja vs.

Ajay Kumar, by the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, ‘the case’). By the impugned order

an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) has been allowede x parte and the revisionist

has been directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent no.2.

Facts, necessary for disposal of the revision briefly stated are that the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code seeking

maintenance from the revisionist. The application was filed on 19.11.2015. According to the application the revisionist and the respondent no.2 married

on 04.02.2014. After the marriage, respondent no.2 was harassed and tortured for the want of dowry. She was beaten up and insulted and finally, she

was expelled from her matrimonial house on 18.05.2015and since then respondent no.2 is staying with her widow mother. She is unable to maintain

herself. She is dependent on her mother, whereas the revisionist is a Government teacher who gets Rs. 41,000/- per month salary. In the case, the

revisionist filed his objection. According to him the application has been moved on false grounds; dowry was never demanded; the revisionist has

taken care of respondent no.2. It has been admitted that since 18.05.2015 respondent no.2 has been staying away but according to the revisionist she

left his house on her own. It has also been averred in the objection that the revisionist is paying maintenance amount under the Domestic Violence

case.

During the hearing of the case, the revisionist subsequently did not appear. The case proceeded ex parte against him. Respondent no.2 and her

mother were examined as witness. Based on the evidence, by the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to

respondent no. 2. It is under challenge.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is ready to keep his wife respondent no.2 with him, but the respondent no.2 has

been staying away without any reasonable cause; the amount of maintenance is on higher side.

Criminal revision has a very limited scope. Appreciation of evidence cannot be taken in a routine unless it has been shown to indicate perversity in

the order. What is being argued is that the revisionist is ready to keep the respondent no.2 with him. But, intention is a mental state of mind. Mind

cannot be read but intention can be gathered by the acts committed by a person. Here is the revisionist, who did not appear in the maintenance

proceedings after filing of the objection and here in this proceeding it is being stated that he is ready and willing to keep his wife with him. At this

stage, this argument has no legs to stand on.

Respondent no.2 and her mother have supported the version in the petition under Section 125 of the Code. It is stated by them that the respondent

no.2 was expelled from her house on 18.05.2015 and she is unable to maintain herself and is dependent upon her mother, whereas respondent no.2

gets salary RS. 55,540/- per month. Salary slip of the revisionist was produced in the case, which according to the impugned order, reveals that the

salary of the revisionist was Rs. 53684.00 per month. In his objection, the revisionist has stated that he is paying some amount under the domestic

violence case. But at the time of argument, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the domestic violence case and case under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 195, pending between the parties were withdrawn with the mutual consent. It means the revisionit is not paying any amount to

the respondent no.2.

The on oath statement of the respondent no.2 and her mother are uncontroverted. The revisionist did not opt to contest the case; he did not adduce

any evidence in the case.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned court below did not commit any error in allowing the

application under Section 125 of the Code filed by the respondent no. 2.

Having considered all the facts and keeping in view the financial resources of the revisionist, the learned court below directed the revisionist to pay

Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2, which cannot be said to be excessive. .

The revision is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed

The revision is hereby dismissed in limine.