Dismissed

Rajesh Silswal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of U.K. Secretariat Complex, Subhash Road

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2023CRLR/175/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/month. The Court held the lower court's income estimation was not arbitrary and saw no error or impropriety in granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed in limine without interfering with the lower court's order granting interim maintenance.

Rajesh Silswal Vs State of Uttarakhand through… — Maintenance and Alimony | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 175 of 2023

Rajesh Silswal

....Revisionist

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 12.01.2023, passed in Criminal case No.78 of 2022, Smt. Sandhya Vs. Rajesh Silswal, by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (“the case”). By the impugned order, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the private respondent, Smt. Sandhya, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/per month as interim maintenance to the private respondent, the wife.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

¶12

According to the private respondent, she

¶13

and the revisionist were married on 29.06.2020, but

¶14

¶15

after marriage, she was harassed for dowry. She was abused and beaten up. She was finally expelled from her matrimonial house on 02.03.2022. She has been staying in her father’s house. She has no means to survive, whereas, the revisionist is a person, who perform Panditayi . He earns about Rs. 50,000/- per month. Based on this application, the proceedings of the case were instituted.

¶16

In the case, an application for interim maintenance has also been filed. The revisionist filed his objections denying all the allegations. It has been the case of the revisionist that he never demanded any money or harassed the private respondent. In fact, according to the revisionist, the marriage was performed by concealing facts by the private respondent. She was mentally unwell. She was treated upon, but, her disease gradually got aggravated. It has been the case of the revisionist that he earns Rs. 4,000/- per month, whereas, the private respondent earns by some skilled works. It is this application, which has been allowed by the impugned order and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist would

¶19

submit that impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. He would submit that the court below assumed the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs. 25,000/- per month, without there being any evidence. It is also argued that, in fact, a fraud was played on the revisionist by concealing the decease of the private respondent. He would also submit that the private respondent’s conduct is weird. At times, she would jump from the terrace, and sometimes, she would press the neck of the revisionist and after a short while, she would forget everything.

¶20

In the cases of maintenance, one of the difficult tasks is to ascertain the monthly income of the parties, particularly, when there is no document. It is being argued that the revisionist performs post-death rituals as a Pandit and hardly earns Rs. 4,000/- per month.

¶21

This Court cannot say that the assessment of the income, which has been made by the court below is on assumptions. The court has taken into consideration the attending factor. Undoubtedly, it is a kind of estimation, but this estimation is not without any basis.

¶22

¶23

Insofar as the cause for staying separate is concerned, it would fall for scrutiny during the adjudication of the case. Fact remains that it is the case of the revisionist that a fraud was played on the revisionist by the private respondent by concealing her mental illness. It has also been argued that proceedings under Section 13 B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was initiated, but, subsequently, again the private respondent started staying with the revisionist.

¶24

The Court refrains to infer from the statements, which have been made before this Court with regard to the conduct of the private respondent. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself.

¶25

The revision is dismissed in limine.

¶26

Ravi Bisht

Rajesh Silswal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of U.K. Secretariat Complex, Subhash Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Silswal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Government of U.K. Secretariat Complex, Subhash Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahin Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sachin Alias Vicky Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sabir Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

X Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Govt. of U.K. Dehradun

X Vs State of Uttarakhand

Royer Nicole Vs State of Uttarakhand