Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2020
Sanjit Chauhan
....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the private respondents.
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to judgment and order dated 02.11.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 357 of 2018, Smt. Archana Rawat Chauhan and Another Vs. Sanjit Chauhan, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (“the case”). By the impugned order, an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), by the respondent no.2 for herself and her son, the respondent no.3, has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no.2, his wife, and Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no.3 per month as interim maintenance.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
2 3.
Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law for the following two reasons:-
(i) The income of the opposite party has wrongly been presumed by the court. The revisionist has filed his employment and income certificate. It has wrongly been not taken into consideration. And;
(ii) The respondent no.2 has been staying separate without any reasonable cause. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance in view of Section 125 (4) of the Code.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that the impugned judgment and order does not warrant ay interference. It is argued that despite order of the court below to produce income tax returns, the revisionist did not submit his income tax returns. It is also argued that once the impugned order was passed on 02.11.2019, the revisionist, on 16.01.2020, gifted his properties to his sister and, thereafter, on 17.01.2020, he filed his affidavits in this Court.
At it, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that these factors may not be taken into
3 consideration in this revision because the revision may only touch upon the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. And even, the factors that took place post passing of the impugned order may not be taken into consideration. Although, when asked by the Court, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that, in fact, the revisionist had purchased a property from his sister. He had taken loan on that property for the treatment of his mother. Subsequently, he gifted that property to his sister.
It raises many questions. If a person purchases a property from his sister and takes loan on it, does not it mean that such person is in financial crises? And if it is so, why should that person gift the property to the person, from whom, he had purchased the property? But, definitely, these transactions were post passing of the impugned order. They were not the part of the record before the court below. Therefore, this Court refrains to make any further discussion on that issue and those transactions shall not have any bearing while examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned judgment and order.
Admittedly, this is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned
4 judgment unless the finding is perverse or material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered.
The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code by the respondent no.2 seeking maintenance for herself and her son from the revisionist. According to the respondent no.2, after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for the additional demand of dowry. She was taunted, neglected and tortured on small issues. The application under Section 125 of the Code is quite in detail. According to it, on 30.05.2016, the respondent no.2 was expelled from matrimonial house. She has no means to maintain herself, whereas, it is the case of the respondent no.2 that the revisionist is a person of means and he could easily provide the respondent nos. 2 and 3, Rs.65,000/- per month for maintenance.
In his objections filed against the application, the revisionist has denied those allegations. According to him, he was earlier working in a company, but due to frequent appearance in the court, he had to resign and now he is unemployed. It is also stated that the respondent no.2 has been staying separate without any reasonable cause. It is also the case of the
5 revisionist that the respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself. She is highly qualified.
10.
Two questions have been raised. (i) reasons for staying separate and (ii) the income of the revisionist.
11.
It is the categorical case of the respondent no.2 that after marriage, she was harassed in her matrimonial house and finally she was expelled from her matrimonial house on 30.05.2016. It is admitted that parties, at one point of time, stayed together.
12.
The court below has discussed evidence on that aspect. The Court does not find any illegality, error or impropriety in the findings recorded by the court below. After appreciating the evidence, the conclusion has been drawn by the court below. In fact, the discussion is in quite detail. In para 40 of the impugned order, the court recorded the finding that the respondent no.2 has sufficient reasons to stay separate from the revisionist. This finding does not warrant any interference. It is in accordance with law.
13.
In so far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, in his objections, the revisionist has stated
6 that he was earlier working with some company and he has resigned from there.
14.
Learned counsel for the revisionist admits that the resignation letter has not been filed by the revisionist in the court below.
15.
What is argued with utmost force is that an income certificate filed by the revisionist has not been taken into consideration.
16.
It may not be appropriate to say that the court did not consider the certificate filed by the revisionist. The court, in fact, framed issues for determination and under issue no.3, this aspect has been considered. In Para 28, the certificate filed by the revisionist has been considered in quite detail. The court did not believe it and observed that the monthly income of the revisionist is about Rs. 70,000/-. This finding is also based on evidence.
17.
A certificate dated 19.08.2019, with regard to employment was filed by the revisionist in the court below. According to it, the revisionist started working with some ARD Group on 08.08.2019. On 16.08.2019,
7 the revisionist also filed an affidavit and in para 4 of it, he stated that he has been working with ARD Group since 10.08.2019.
18.
This Court asked learned counsel for the revisionist as to which is the correct document? The affidavit dated 16.08.2019 filed by the revisionist or the certificate of employment dated 19.08.2019. There is no reply to it. Not only this, what is important is on 30.09.2019, the revisionist filed an affidavit in his examination-in-chief. On that date, it has been taken on record and in Para 85 of it, the revisionist writes that he had already resigned from his job and he is unemployed. Fact remain that earlier the revisionist filed an affidavit on 16.08.2019 saying that he had been working in one ARD Group since 10.08.2019. If it is so, how was the revisionist unemployed on 30.09.2019 when he filed his affidavit (Para 85) in the examination-in-chief.
19.
On 15.10.2019, the revisionist was directed by the court to file his income tax returns. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the revisionist as to whether he filed his income tax report? The reply is in negative.
8 20.
In cases where the court finds that the documents with regard to income are not believable, the court generally makes an estimation with regard to the income of a person. In such circumstances, definitely the assessment made by the court may not be accurate or precise. But the court always tries to reach to the nearest possible extent of the actual income of the person. That is what the court below has done in this case. The estimation of the income, which the court below has arrived at cannot be said to be perverse. It is based on the qualification of the revisionist, his earlier admitted salary, his conduct, the unreliability of the documents, his denial to file income tax returns, etc.
21.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is in accordance with law. This Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
22.
The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.09.2022
Ravi Bisht