Amrit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the order of interim maintenance dated 07.03.2024, passed in Criminal Case No. 10 of 2023, Smt. Kavita Vs. Amirt Kumar, by the court of Family Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month interim relief to the respondent no.2.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

The record reveals that the respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the revisionist seeking maintenance, which is the basis of the case. In the case, an application for interim maintenance has also been filed by the respondent no.2, inter alia, on the ground that due to harassment given at the hands of the revisionist; the respondent no.2 is unwell; she cannot maintain herself. Whereas, the revisionist works as IT Manager and gets Rs. 1.5 Lakhs as salary, and he also gets Rs. 50,000/- as rent. The respondent no.2 had demanded Rs. 50,000/- as interim maintenance.

It has been objected to the revisionist, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent no.2 is an educated woman and she also takes tuition; she is able to maintain herself; she is staying in her father’s house on her own. The income, as stated by the respondent no.2, has been denied by the revisionist. According to the revisionist, he gets Rs. 40,000/- per month.

After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is ready and willing to keep his wife, the respondent no.2, with him. He would also submit that if attempts for mediation are made, perhaps, the matter may be settled.

According to the respondent no.2, she and the revisionist were married on 08.07.2022, but after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. Rs. 10 Lakhs and a car were also demanded. The respondent no.2 has also stated about the sexual orientation of the revisionist and subsequent Panchayats that were conducted on 30.07.2022, when, it is the case of the respondent no.2, she was expelled from her matrimonial house.

In his objections, the revisionist has denied all these allegations. According to the revisionist, after marriage, the respondent no.2 started abusing the revisionist and threatening him to take her life. According to the revisionist, on 29.07.2022, the respondent no.2 left her matrimonial house without any reason, though, it is stated that on 28.07.2022, there were some disputes between the revisionist and the respondent no.12.

By the impugned order, interim maintenance has been awarded to the respondent no.2. Admittedly, the income of the revisionist is Rs. 40,000/-per month. In the impugned order, the further liability of the revisionist has also been discussed. Thereafter, Rs. 10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance, has been awarded to the respondent no.2. The court has also discussed the reasons for staying separate and a tentative finding has been recorded by the court below. What is the actual reason for staying separate, it would find scrutiny once parties are permitted to adduce their evidence, a stage which is yet to come.

Insofar as the changes of amicable settlement between the parties are concerned, it is definitely a welcome move. If such a settlement is arrived at, both the parties will be in a win-win situation. But the case has yet not been decided by the court below. Such a request may be made by the revisionist in the court below, and this Court has no doubt that the court below shall make all attempts for amicable settlement between the parties through mediation, conciliation, etc.

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.

The revision is dismissed in limine.