Nitin Raghav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 20.07.2024, passed in Case No.259 of 2022, Kajal Chauhan vs. Nitin Raghav, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By which, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his wife (“respondent no.2”) as interim maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The respondent no.2 filed an application seeking maintenance from the revisionist under Section 125 of the Code. It has been the case of the respondent no.2 that she and the revisionist married on 08.12.2021, but after marriage, she was harassed and tortured on multiple occasions. Finally, she was deserted by the revisionist.

It has further been the case of the respondent no.2 that the revisionist gets Rs. 90,000/- per month income from all sources, whereas the respondent no.2 is not able to maintain herself. She sought Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance. In the case an application for interim maintenance has been filed.

The revisionist filed objections to it. He has denied all the allegations of atrocities, harassment and demand of dowry. It has been the case of the revisionist that the application has been filed with baseless allegations. The income of the revisionist is Rs. 7,500/- per month. He does not work at any other place. He does not have property. With regard to the income of the respondent no.2, it has been the case of the revisionist that the respondent no.2 runs a boutique and earns Rs. 25,000/- per month.

After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the court below held that even a person, who works in Manrega earns more than Rs. 7,500/- per month. The court below also took notice of various photographs to ascertain the life style of the revisionist and held that the income of the revisionist is Rs. 15,000/- per month, based on which, the impugned order has been passed.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the amount of maintenance is excessive; the revisionist has already filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which is still pending. The revisionist earns only Rs. 7,500/- per month and the court below has wrongly relied on the photographs. It is also argued that the revisionist is still willing and ready to keep the respondent no.2 with him.

It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order.

The impugned order that has been passed is on interim relief application. The rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated finally once they are permitted to produce evidence.

The revisionist claims that he earns Rs. 7,500/- per month. The court below has taken various photographs for ascertaining the life style of the revisionist. These findings are tentative. Such assistance to assess the income can definitely be taken.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly assessed the income of the revisionist and passed the impugned order. Therefore, there is no occasion to entertain the instant revision. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The revision is dismissed in limine.