Ashok Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the impugned judgment and order dated 07.12.2021, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01 of 2016, Smt. Meena Kumari & Another Vs. Ashok Kumar, by the court of Family Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,250/- per month as interim maintenance to the private respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

The case is based on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), filed by the respondent no.2, the wife of the revisionist and respondent no.3, the son of the revisionist seeking maintenance from the revisionist.

According to it, the respondent no.2 and the revisionist were married on 24.06.2006. Gifts were given in the marriage, but the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it. They were demanding Rs. 2 Lacs and a vehicle. Since the demand was not met, the respondent no.2 was expelled from the house of the revisionist on 14.05.2007. Again the parties settled the dispute in the Year 2011, but, thereafter, again the respondent no.2 was not allowed to remain in the house of the revisionist. There are other details as well in the application. The respondent no.2 writes in her application that she is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist is an Assistant Teacher, who gets Rs. 40,000/- per month salary.

This application has been objected to by the revisionist, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent no.2 is working as an Anganwadi worker since 2004 and is getting Rs. 10,000/- per month. She has levelled false allegations against the revisionist. She does not want to stay with the revisionist. With regard to financial liabilities, according to the revisionist, his father is unwell. He has to maintain him as well, whereas, the respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself.

Parties adduced evidence in the case. The respondent no.2 examined herself and the revisionist was also examined as a witness. They have supported their respective cases. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs. 2,250/- per month to the respondent no.3 as interim maintenance. Aggrieved by it, the instant revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the impugned judgment and order is bad in the eyes of law for the following reasons:-

(i) The respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself. Since 2004, she has been working as an Anganwadi worker in Kashipur. It is argued that this fact has not been considered by the court below. And,

(ii) The respondent no.2 is staying separate without any reasonable cause. It is the specific case of the revisionist that because of her employment, the respondent no.2 does not want to stay with the revisionist. But, it has also not been taken into consideration by the court below.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that the impugned and order is in accordance with law. He would refer to Para 13 of the impugned judgment and order to argue that, in fact, the cause of staying separate has been discussed in the impugned order quite in detail. The job, on which the respondent no.2 is working, is not permanent. It is a kind of occupation.

This is a revision. The scope is much restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. Evaluation of evidence, at this stage, may not generally be done, unless the finding is perverse or irrelevant material is considered or relevant material is left from consideration.

It is the categorical case of the respondent no.2 that after marriage, she was harassed for thedemand of dowry. Parties were married in the year 2006. After 2007, the respondent no.2 started staying separate. She levelled allegations against the revisionist and his family members that she was harassed in her matrimonial house. Again in the year 2011, the parties, according to the respondent no.2, settled the dispute and they stayed together for a while, but the acrimony did not subside. If the respondent no.2 had to stay separate, she would not have entered into a settlement and started staying with the revisionist. The respondent no.2 had started staying with the revisionist at Moradabad. Even otherwise, it is being told that as an Anganwadi worker, the respondent no.2 is not a kind of permanent employee. It is a kind of casual engagement.

The court below has quite in detail discussed all those aspects and in Para 13, concluded that the respondent no.2 is staying separate with sufficient cause. With regard to the income also, the court has discussed the means of both the parties and arrived at a conclusion. The court below directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent no.2, the wife and Rs. 2,250/- per month to the respondent no.3, the son, as maintenance.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court does not find any illegality, error or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. This Court does not see any reason to make any interference and the revision deserves to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.