Prakash Chandra Behera vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the impugned order dated 21.03.2022, passed in Case No. 346 of 2018, Smt. Tapas Sarita Raut Vs. Sh. Prakash Chandra Behera, by the court of Family Judge, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent no.2.

Today, when none was present for the State, the Court requested Mr. G.S. Sandhu, the Government Advocate, as to whether, any Government Advocate has been appointed to assist the Court? According to him, he has allotted the cases to the Additional Government Advocates, but despite it, none is present on behalf of the State.

It appears that the respondent no.2, the wife of the revisionist, filed an application seeking maintenance from the revisionist under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the basis of the case. In that case, an application for interim maintenance was filed. According to the respondent no.2, she and the revisionist were married, but after marriage, the revisionist tortured and did marpeet with her, due to which respondent no.2 was compelled to stay separate. The revisionist works in an organisation and gets Rs. 55,000/- per month salary. He has agricultural land also, whereas, the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself.

The interim maintenance application has been objected to by the revisionist on the ground that he had already resigned from the company on 20.03.2018. He works in a Gaushala and earns Rs. 1,500-1,800/-per month. According to the revisionist, the respondent no.2, the wife, has done some course and she is on job.

This revision was admitted on 18.07.2022. On that date, reference was made to an affidavit filed by the revisionist pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, to show that the revisionist had already resigned from the establishment. It was then argued that the affidavit was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.

It is true that in his affidavit filed pursuant to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra), the revisionist has at one place stated that he had resigned, but he has not stated his income. He did not enclose with it his payslip, account details, etc. In the impugned order, the court has discussed the income of the revisionist. The Court noted that although the revisionist has stated that he had resigned from his earlier job on 20.03.2018, but he did not file any document with regard to it. In view of what has been discussed by the court below, it cannot be said that the court below did not take notice of the contention raised by the revisionist that he had already resigned from his earlier job.

After examining the material on record, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is not wrong, illegal or improper. It does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.