Sandeep Kumar Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 09.01.2025, passed in Case No.366 of 2023, Deepti Saini Vs. Sandeep Kumar Verma, by the court of Additional Family Judge, First, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 25,000/-, per month, as interim maintenance, to the respondent no.2, his wife.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the respondent no.2, seeking maintenance for herself. According to it, the revisionist and the respondent no.2 were married on 12.05.2023, but after marriage, the revisionist started demanding dowry and would also take obscene photographs and videographs of the respondent no.2 and started threatening her; according to the respondent no.2, she was ill treated by the revisionist and finally expelled from her house.

It has been the case of the respondent no.2 that she is highly qualified, but she is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist earns Rs. 2,08,334/-. In the case, an application for interim maintenance has also been filed.

The revisionist did file his objections. He has denied all the allegations. It has been the case of the revisionist that after marriage, the respondent no.2 was much aggressive and quarrelsome. She would take up quarrels on small issues and left the matrimonial home on 20.06.2023. It has been the case of the revisionist that the respondent no.2 may earn Rs. 2 Lakhs per month. She had already worked in various companies. According to the revisionist, he gets Rs. 80.000/-, per month, as salary.

After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month, as interim maintenance, to the respondent no.2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the net salary of the revisionist is Rs. 81,000/-, per month; the revisionist has liability of his parents; all the expenditure has already been disclosed by him in Para 11 of his objections.

It may be noted that according to this expenditure, per month expenditure of the revisionist is Rs. 82,500/-.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would also submit that, in fact, TransUnion CIBIL, an organization, which gives details about the salary and earning capacity of an individual, reveals that the respondent no.2 earns and she has good credit rating.

It has not been the case of the revisionist that the respondent no.2 is working anywhere and earning. What has been stated in his objections by the revisionist is that the respondent no.2 is highly qualified, who had worked prior to marriage in various companies.

Capability of earning is one thing and able to maintain, is something different.

As stated, it has not been the case of the respondent no.2 that respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself. Moreover, no documents on that aspect, which could show that the respondent no.2 earns any salary or anything from any source, have been filed by the revisionist in the court below.

Insofar as the family members and the liabilities are concerned, that was definitely a consideration while awarding the maintenance. In Para 10 of the impugned order, the court has noted that as per the payslip of the revisionist, his total salary is Rs. 1,69,139/-. He deducts Rs. 57,337/- in is Provident Fund account. Why the revisionist could not reduce it? In fact, as per the payslip, total Rs. 81,663/- net salary is paid to the revisionist, whereas, according to the revisionist, his monthly expenditure is of Rs. 82,500/-, which means that the revisionist has given expenditure on a higher side because he cannot spend more than what he gets in routine and every month.

Having considered the total income of the revisionist and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly fixed Rs. 25,000/- per month, as interim maintenance. The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself.

The revision is dismissed in limine.