Rajat Kumar Alias Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The marriage between respondent No. 2 and the revisionist was solemnized on 19th February 2018, in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals and thereafter there arose certain family disputes amongst themselves and it is alleged by the revisionist that the respondent/wife has voluntarily deserted him and is residing with her parents and he has contended that despite of various efforts made by the revisionist to retrieve her back, she has not joined the revisionist and had tacitly declined to discharged her matrimonial obligations.

Consequently, in order to revive the matrimonial relationship, the revisionist contends that he has initiated the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights by moving an application to the said effect on 13th June 2018, which is pending consideration and has not yet been decided. It may be a fact that he has initiated a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to retrieve back his wife, which he contends that she has voluntarily left the matrimonial home; but that is a fact, which is yet to be judicially decided by the Courts, and its only on the culmination of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and until and unless a specific finding is recorded by the Court below after considering the rival evidence between the parties, no inference can conclusively be drawn at this stage that as to whether actually a desertion has been taken place or not, and under what circumstances the respondent/wife and the revisionist are living separately.

It is an admitted case that on 4th August 2018, when the respondent/wife has initiated the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Case No. 8 of 2018, Smt. Konika v. Rajat, in which she has raised a claim for the grant of a maintenance to her @ Rs. 20,000/- per month and in support of her contention she has submitted that the revisionist who is working in a private company is having an income of about Rs. 25000/- per month and hence she would be entitled to be paid with the amount of maintenance which she has claimed in her application.

Admittedly, the notices were issued, the notices were served on the revisionist, thereafter he had voluntarily chosen not to participate in the proceedings, he has not produced any pleading or any evidence in support of the pleadings to deny the averments, which has been made by the respondent/wife in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was submitted on 4th August 2018. Under these circumstances, the learned Family Court had no other options except to proceed ex parte and pass an order to proceed ex parte, consequently, the learned Family Court has passed an order on 19th March 2019 to proceed ex parte. The said order too was never sought to be recalled by the revisionist at any stage of the proceedings and it remained in operation till ultimately the case was decided by an order dated 27th April 2019 which is impugned in the Criminal Revision.

In order to show the diligence with which the revisionist has participated in the proceedings, the Court has recorded a consistent finding in para 6 and 11 of the order dated 27th April, 2019 that after appearance, he himself has sought time to file objection on various dates and had sought adjournments, in such an eventuality, where a litigant to a proceeding voluntarily does not file/raises any pleadings in contravention to the case registered against him or to the pleadings and he fails to adduce any evidence in his support, the Court has to proceed to decide the matter particularly, when it happens to be a matter relating to a family dispute, which otherwise law contemplates that it should be decided as expeditiously as possible.

But, in the case at hand, the learned Family Court, Laksar District Haridwar, on considering the pleadings raised in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with regard to the income accruing to the revisionist the learned Family Court has fixed a maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to be paid every month which was to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent-wife by 10th of each month.

Considering the conduct of the revisionist, and considering the fact that he has not led any evidence denying the pleadings raised in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., hence it would be presumed that the factum of income, which has been pleaded by the respondent-wife was chosen not to be denied by him. Based upon the quantum of income accruing to the revisionist, the amount of maintenance, which has been granted by the learned Family Court it seems to be absolutely just and appropriate for the reason that it is highly in presumable that a person without any income would be able to maintain herself and would be able to bear the basic necessities of life, with the said quantum of maintenance as awarded by the learned Family Court vide its judgement dated 27th April, 2019.

Consequently, this Court is of the view that the reasons, which have been assigned in the impugned order adopting the criterion for determination of the compensation, the amount determined is absolutely just and proper which does not call for any interference in exercising the revisional power under Section 379 to be read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. thus, the revision is dismissed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.