Sachin Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

This Criminal Revision, which has been preferred by the revisionist is being aggrieved against the judgment dated 28th January, 2019, rendered by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No. 172 of 2018, Varsha Sharma Vs. Sachin Gupta, whereby, the application preferred by the respondent No. 2, has been partly allowed, consequently, thereby, a direction has been issued by the Family Court to the revisionist to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- p.m. and the amount thus directed to be paid was to be paid by 10th of each month. The Court has also given an alternative arrangement to the revisionist that in case, if he so feels to be convenient, he may deposit the said amount as directed by the impugned order by making the deposit directly in the bank account standing in the name of respondent No. 2.

Brief facts as involved in the instant case are that the revisionist and the respondent No. 2. admittedly, were married according to the Hindu rites and rituals on 15th April, 2017, at Govind Garden Ranipur, Haridwar. In accordance with the contents of the application, preferred by respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., i.e. paper No. 11A, for the grant of interim maintenance filed on 21st May, 2018, it was contended by respondent No. 2 that the family has spent of about Rs. 40 lacs, which was spent by the family members of respondent No. 2 in the family, which was handed over to the revisionist during the marriage ceremony solemnized between them. Thereafter, in order to discharge their matrimonial obligations, the revisionist and respondent No. 2 had visited difference places, including Mussoorie in the initial phase of their marriage. Later on, it is the allegation of respondent No. 2 in her application that it has been revealed by the mother-in-law of respondent No. 2 that the revisionist has got same illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, i.e. bhabhi, Satakshi, however, the said allegation was initially overlooked by the respondent No. 2 but, since, later on it revealed that the allegation as leveled by the mother-in-law proved to be correct, thus, continuance of illicit relationship with the bhabhi as informed to respondent No. 2 was held out to be an illegal relationship and which was creating a hurdle in continuance of the matrimonial relationship between the revisionist and respondent No. 2, which was solemnized on 15th February, 2017. Apart from that, there have been various altercations between husband and wife and the revisionist used to engage himself in lending out money to the other shopkeepers. It was alleged by the revisionist that after the solemnization of the marriage, all the ornaments and other valuables received by respondent No. 2 that was left by the respondent No.2 in the house of the revisionist and she has left home on 6th March, 2017. It was contended that the niece of the opposite party No.2 whose marriage was to be solemnized on 18th April, 2017, but the opposite party No. 2, has alleged that she has not been invited in the said marriage. The opposite party No. 2 contends that she holds no grievances as such for not being invited in the family ceremonies after she left the in-laws home on 6th March, 2017, due to the illicit relation of revisionist.

Ever since the leaving of the in-laws home on 6.03.2017, she is residing with her parents and on account of the fact that the revisionist and his brother, i.e. Nitin, had threatened her to fulfill their demand for the purposes of the extension of the shop and business, for which, the revisionist is alleged to have demanded the financial assistance of Rs.25,00,000/- or in an alternative failing which, they will not permit the O.P. No. 2 to reside with him and come back to the in-laws home and discharge the matrimonial obligations. Faced with the situation, it is contended by respondent No. 2 that on 3rd August, 2017, revisionist has initiated the proceedings by way of filing the proceedings for restitution of the conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which, the parties were summoned, but despite of various efforts being made by the Court, matrimony between the revisionist and respondent No. 2 could not be revived back. Consequently, finally she has contended that she had returned to her parents' home on 12th January, 2018. She has also alleged that when the dispute between them was not settled in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, the respondent No. 2 has taken a decision to finally reside with her parents on 12th January, 2018 and the relatives of the revisionist tried to interfere in the said decision and had even gone to the extent of having a physical alternation inter se between them, it was when the respondent No. 2, has refused to accompany them to the in-laws home, it is alleged by respondent No. 2 that she was assaulted by a knife by the relatives of the revisionist, due to which, she was hospitalized in the Medical College and she has also lodged a police complaint before the S.S.P. Haridwar and also before the Mahila Helpline, which was registered as Case Crime No. 187 of 2018 under Sections 323, 498, 506, 34/324 I.P.C. and under Section ¾ D.P. Act.

The respondent No. 2 in her application contended that the revisionist is having a handsome earning from the shop which he is operating and he has got an income of about 15,000/- pm. as he is running the business in the name and style of Shagun Saree Kendra and Shagun Fancy Collection at Kankhal Chowk Bazar and has got two other different Saree show rooms from where, he is earning about Rs. 90,000/- per month. She has contended that if the two income are clubbed together, the revisionist is earning about Rs.1,05,000/- p.m. and hence, he owes a responsibility to maintain the opposite part No. 2, who is shown to have left the house of the in-laws home on 12th January, 2018 because of physical assault made upon her by the relatives of the revisionist and since she has got no other source of earning, coupled with the fact that the parents of the respondent No. 2 are aged, they are not economically sound to take care of her. She further submitted that since she has not acquired any technical knowledge, she is not in a position to get herself profitably engaged, as such, she has claimed for maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/-p.m. to be paid by the revisionist, so as to enable her to maintain herself socially with the social status which she enjoyed after marriage as wife, in accordance with the living standards of the husband, to which, she contends that she is entitled to receive by invoking the provisions contained under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The said application preferred by the respondent No. 2 was opposed by the revisionist by filing an objection, paper No. 18-kha and had denied the allegation leveled in the application preferred under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, he admitted the fact pertaining to the marriage having been solemnized between them and also he contended that some of the photographs which have been placed on record by respondent No.2, it shows the illicit relationship with Bhabhi, they have been rather dubbed up to project a false case against the revisionist and to prepare false evidence against him, which the revisionist contends that he intended to challenge the same. He further submitted that the relationship between the revisionist and respondent No. 2 worsened further when the opposite party No. 2 started pressurizing the revisionist under the threat of the allegation of illicit relationship with his bhabhi. The revisionist denied the allegation pertaining to the demand being raised for money for the purposes of extension of the sari business or demand of car which was said to be raised by them from the in-laws of the revisionist, i.e. parents of respondent No.2.

It was the case of the revisionist that despite of initiation of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on 3.08.2017, it was that she has also lodged a complaint before the S.H.O. Kankhal, contending thereof that there happens to be no dispute amongst them but rather the applicant to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., who is legally wedded wife of the revisionist, has failed to discharge the matrimonial obligation and since she has roped the family in false allegations by way of registration of Criminal Case No. 187 of 2017, as such, owing to the aforesaid circumstances, it was practically not possible to live together because, of the actions taken by the respondent No. 2 to protect her integrity. In the application thus preferred under Section 125, she has contended that she has no other source of income and hence, she has filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for the grant of pendent lite maintenance on 21.0.2018.

The application thus filed by her on 21st May, 2018, she has claimed for the grant of maintenance pendent lite @ 50,000/- per month. The application thus filed by respondent No. 2, the Court considered its propriety and after considering the rival contention and pleadings with regard to the source of income, which the revisionist has from his business, and the fact which stood established by the evidence adduced by the O.P. No. 2, the Court considering the allegations leveled by the revisionist and in his reply to the application under Section 125 to the effect that the respondent No. 2 is well qualified lady since being post graduate and she is doing her P.H.D. from Sociology from Gurgul Kangri College and also doing her private job in a School, apart from taking tuition.

In order to give colour to his pleading, he has also submitted that as far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, she is able to earn a sum of Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- p.m. but the learned Family court, while considering the rival contention, has come to the conclusion that as far as the allegation in opposition to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the revisionist has not been able to show as to any mode or manner in which respondent No. 2 has engaged herself profitably and she is having an independent source of earning nor any evidence was led by him to prove his plea of respondent No.2 being an earning member. The Family Court, Haridwar, on considering the application and rival pleading has held that the revisionist has been unable to establish his opposition to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so far he has raised a pleading to the effect that wife has got an independent source of earning and it does not call for any interference while entertaining the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Besides this, while participating in the criminal proceedings, which has been drawn inter se amongst the parties, it was the case of the revisionist that he had rather admitted that he has got two Sari Show Rooms, by the name of Shagun Saree Kendra and, hence, the contradictory statement has been made by the revisionist in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in the criminal proceedings, they are self contradictory from the view point that the contention of the revisionist that he happens to be unemployed person and having no source of earning runs contrary to his own stand taken, wherein, he admits to be an owner of two saree show rooms from where he is having satisfactory and handsome source of earning. The Family Court, while considering the application has also recorded the findings to the effect that when a person gets married, he owes an honorous duty towards her wife as well as his family members and owes a responsibility to maintain them and to provide them with all the amenities of life so that they may have a better standards of living to which a family members is used to.

The said contention finds support from the fact that when the respondent No. 2 had initiated the criminal proceedings by registering an F.I.R. against the revisionist and when the revisionist has applied for being granted bail for the offense under Section 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. to be read Section ¾ D.P. Act, he has portrayed himself to be a person having a social status and thus, the said finding which has been recorded in the bail which was granted on 10th July, 2018, itself shows an admission on part of the revisionist that he is economically having a sound financial condition and is capable enough to part with a sum of Rs.8,000/- which has been awarded by the Family Court as maintenance to respondent No. 2.

After having considered the rival contentions which has been pleaded and in particular, the findings recorded by Family Court, when there was no denial by the revisionist pertaining to the quantum of income which was accruing to the revisionist, as pleaded in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that in the absence of there being a denial of source of income, and in the absence of failure on the part of the revisionist to show and substantiate his pleadings to the effect that the wife was qualified and she was profitably employed in a private school and also taking tuition, and hence, the theory of revisionist that respondent No. 2, had an independent source of earning was not proved and when no evidence was led to the contrary by the revisionist who wanted to take advantage of the fact that the wife was having an independent source of earning to avoid his liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it was he who had to discharge the burden of proof, which he has utterly failed to discharge in view of the provisions of Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Since the revisionist has failed to discharge his burden of proof and he has not led any evidence to the contrary, to show that the wife respondent No. 2 was having any source of income and there is nothing on record to show the contrary, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.8,000/-p.m. which has been determined and directed to be paid by the Family Court, Haridwar by 10th of each month, is quite a reasonable amount which the Family Court has awarded in favour of respondent No. 2.

Considering the inflation rate which the Indian economy is suffering from, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month is quite reasonable, which does not call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional power under Section 397 to read with 401 of the Cr.P.C.. Hence, the revision is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.