Vijay Bharat vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.01.2023, passed in Case No. 248 of 2021, Saloni @ Sarika and another Vs. Vijay Bharat, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay total Rs.5000/- to the private respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2023 has been filed. There is a delay of 100 days in filing the revision. It is not objected to by the learned State counsel.

Having heard and considering the grounds for delay, the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is condoned.

It appears that the respondent no.2 (wife) filed an application seeking maintenance from the revisionist. According to her, she has been staying separate as she was harassed in her in-laws house for dowry. She has no means to survive, where as the revisionist works in SIDCUL and gets Rs. 35,000/- per month salary and he also earns from other sources. Total Rs.25,000/- maintenance was sought which is basis of the case.

In the case, an application for interim maintenance was also filed. The revisionist objected to the averments made by the respondent no.2. According to him, the respondent no.2 was never harassed for dowry. She earns about Rs.25,000/- from the parlor or boutique, where as the revisionist is unemployed youth.

After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the respondent no.2 and Rs.2,000/- to the respondent no.3 the daughter of the parties. Aggrieved by it, the instant revision has been preferred.

Learned State counsel would submit that the revisionist runs a grocery shop, which was earlier owned by his father. The respondent no.2 has left her matrimonial home on her own without any reason.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that the revisionist earns Rs.35,000/- per month from a company and he has ancestral income also.

It is a revision. The scope is quite distinct to the extent of examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. In the impugned order, the court has discussed quite in detail the means of the respondent no.2 and held that she is not able to maintain herself or her daughter the respondent no.3.

The source of income to the revisionist has also been discussed by the court in the internal page 3 of the impugned order. The court discussed quite in detail and held that minimum Rs.15,000/- per month is the income of the revisionist. Having considered the other factors, the court has awarded total Rs.5000/- per month interim maintenance to the private respondents.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is based on law and facts. It does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The revision is dismissed in limine.