Himanshu Gautam & Others vs Seema Gautam & Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Both these revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.121 of 2012, Smt. Seema Gautam vs. Himanshu Gautam (for short "the case"). By the impugned order, an application filed by wife for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") has been allowed and the husband has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to the wife per month as maintenance.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

In this judgment Himanshu Gautam shall be referred to as revisionist and Smt. Seema Gautam as respondent.

The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code. According to it, after their marriage on 07.12.2010, she was tortured, harassed and expelled from her matrimonial house by the revisionist. Parties have no surviving children. The respondent is staying with her 78 years old aged father; she has no income of her own; the revisionist is "Teerth Purohit" at "Har Ki Pauri" Haridwar; ten more persons works under him; he also deals with the property. Request was made for Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance.

Revisionist filed objection. Denied allegations made in the application. According to the revisionist, he is "Teerth Purohit" and maintains his old ailing mother also; he has not employed any person to work with him; his income is Rs.8-10 thousand per month; he does not deal with property. The revisionist also stated in his objections that respondent also earns about Rs.6,000/-per month.

Evidence was adduced in the case and after hearing the parties, learned court below awarded Rs.8,000/- per month, as maintenance, to the respondent. Both the parties assailed the impugned judgment and order.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that the income of the revisionist is not proved. His father died and he has liability to maintain his mother as well. The amount of maintenance, according to the learned counsel for the revisionist, is much higher side, it should be Rs.6,000/- per month.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would argue that the revisionist is a man of means. His monthly income is not less than Rs.40,000/- per month and the amount awarded is just and reasonable.

These are two revisions and the scope of revision is limited. Both the parties examined themselves in the case and they have been extensively cross examined. Learned court below had one more advantage of observing the parties. The respondent has no source income on her own. She has stated about it. Though according to the revisionist she earns Rs.6,000/- per month by tuition and stitching etc., but it has not been established. The respondent denied it. On the other hand, revisionist admits that he works as a "Teerth Purohit" at "Har Ki Pauri" Haridwar. This Court cannot venture to guess as to what would be the income of the revisionist. It is true that as such, no document has been proved on behalf of the respondent about the income of the revisionist. But, at the same time, it is also true that categorically, the revisionist has not stated as to what is his income.

Considering the relevant aspect of the matter, namely, financial resources of the revisionist, social status of the parties and all the attending factors, this Court is of the view that learned court below did not commit any error in law in awarding Rs.8,000/-per month, as maintenance to the respondent. This amount neither needs any decrease nor any enhancement. Therefore, both the revisions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.

Both the revisions are dismissed, accordingly.