Pankaj Chadda vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal revision, preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Code of Criminal Procedure) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No. 240/2004, Smt. Rekha Chadda v. Pankaj Chadda, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the Respondent No. 3 u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to Respondent No. 3/wife from the date of the order.

Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. None is present for the Respondent No. 3. Perused the entire material available on file.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 3 Smt. Rekha Chadda moved an application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 28.11.2002 at Dehradun, as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage, parents of Respondent No. 3 had spent more than Rs. 3.00 Lacs. On 10.12.2002, when she went to Maharashtra then the revisionist left her there and started harassing her for the demand of dowry. On 7.1.2002 she was taken to Delhi where again the revisionist made a demand of dowry and also beaten her. On 16.4.2003, Rs. 40,000/- was given to the revisionist for motorcycle. On 18.4.2003, on the pretext of taking her from Delhi to Mussorie, the revisionist left her at her parental house at Dehradun for the demand of Rs. 2.00 Lacs as dowry. On 29.9.2003, the revisionist took her to Delhi where he started taunting her for the demand of money. When she fell ill the revisionist did not take her for treatment. On 30.1.2004 she was sent to Dehradun with her parents for her treatment. It was also . stated that the Respondent No. 3 has no source of income and she unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated by Respondent No. 3 that the revisionist has a monthly income of Rs. 18,000/-. With all these averments, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the Respondent No. 3 against the revisionist.

The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He has admitted the fact of marriage with the Respondent No. 3 and has also stated that he works in Independent Disc Motoring Private Ltd. from where he is getting Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by the Respondent No. 3 u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 19.4.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order solely on the ground that the court below has awarded the amount of maintenance against the revisionist without appreciating the evidence on record do not find force in the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist. The court below, after considering the financial status of revisionist and considering the fact that Respondent No. 3 has no source of income, rightly awarded the amount of maintenance. Besides this, the revisionist himself admitted in his written statement that he works in Independent Disc Motoring Private Ltd. from where he is getting Rs. 5,000/- per month, as salary. Therefore, after considering the own admission of the revisionist, the court below rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 3 against the revisionist.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the Respondent No. 3 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and due to the harassment committed by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house. The revisionist has got sufficient means even though he is intentionally neglecting his wife in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance whereas Respondent No. 3 has got no source of income. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to be paid to the Respondent Nos. 3 for maintenance of herself against the revisionist.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.4.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 8.5.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated.