Suraj @ Surajbhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 08.05.2019, passed in Case No. 135 of 2015, Smt. Savita and another Vs. Suraj @ Surajbhan, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the case”). By the impugned judgment and order, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) by the respondent no.2 (the wife) for herself and her minor son, respondent no.3 has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the wife and Rs.3000/- to the minor son i.e. total Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code, seeking maintenance from the revisionist on the ground that after marriage with the revisionist on 22.12.2012, she was harassed, tortured and beaten up by the revisionist and his family members for and in connection with the demand of dowry. Some specific instances of 05.09.2014, 12.03.2015 and 23.04.2015 have been narrated in the application, on which dates, according to the wife, she was beaten up by the revisionist.

It is a case of the wife that she is not able to maintain herself and her minor son. Whereas, the revisionist is a Constable in the Uttarakhand Police and gets salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. The revisionist filed his objections and denied the averments made in the application. It is admitted by the revisionist that on 16.03.2015, his wife left his house. The reasons are varying.

It is the case of the revisionist that without any proper reason the wife is staying away from the revisionist. With regard to the means, according to the revisionist, the wife is able to maintain herself and her minor son. It is also stated that the revisionist has responsibility of his old aged parents also.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that the wife is staying separate without any reasonable cause. The revisionist has also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”) for restitution of conjugal rights and after that an application under Section 125 of the Code was filed by the wife.

Learned counsel appearing for the wife and minor son would submit that the revisionist has concealed the material fact that after withdrawing the petition under Section 9 of the Act, the revisionist has filed a suit for divorce against the wife.

In the revision, the scope is much restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any impugned judgment and order. The appreciation of evidence is not within the domain of the revision unless the finding is perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence or material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered.

It has not even been shown by the learned counsel for the revisionist as to what is the illegality or error in the impugned judgment and order.

It is the specific case of the wife that she was harassed, beaten up and tortured by the revisionist and under such circumstances, she has been compelled to stay away from her husband. In fact, in her cross examination, the wife has stated that she would be happy to stay with the revisionist provided she is not tortured, treated with dignity and not insulted.

The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the revisionist as to why the wife of the revisionist is staying away from the revisionist and where has he stated about it in his objection under Section 125 of the Code? He would submit that without proper reason, the wife is staying separate. What are the reasons as per the revisionist? There is no reply. How could revisionist say that the wife is staying separate without reasons, when he has no reason to tell as to why the wife is staying separate? The wife has given reasons as to why she is staying separate. She has expressed her willingness to stay with the revisionist, of course, subject to the conditions that she be treated with dignity and honour.

In his cross examination, the revisionist has admitted that, in fact, he had withdrawn the petition under Section 9 of the Act. Now, it is being told that the revisionist has subsequently filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act.

Having considered the impugned judgment and order, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly concluded that the wife and her minor son are entitled for maintenance. There is no reason to make any interference. According, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.