The Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 24th June 2022 in the case Harun Rashid V. Smt. Ujma Siddhique and Another (Criminal Revision No. 387 of 2016) the case was presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani
FACTS OF THE CASE
The present revisions are preferred against the order dated 23.07.2016, passed in Criminal Case No. 81 of 2013, Smt. Ujma Siddhique & Another Vs. Harun Rashid, by the court of Family Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order, an application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter, respondent no.2, has been allowed. The revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, the respondent no.1, and Rs. 5,000/- per month to his daughter, the respondent no.2.
The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code, seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter from the revisionist. The revisionist and the respondent no.1 were married on 23.07.2011. The respondent no.1 has already lost her parents. After marriage, according to the application, the respondent no.1 was harassed physically and mentally for the demand of dowry. The revisionist was working in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, as a teacher. When the respondent no.1 gave birth to her daughter, the respondent no.2, she was not taken care of by any of her in-laws. She was ill-treated and expelled from the matrimonial house. She was staying in her parental house. But again, she joined the company of her husband on 16.12.2012. The revisionist returned to his job in Abu Dhabi. The respondent no.1 was further harassed. She was expelled from her matrimonial house on 23.03.2012. She was beaten and abused before her expulsion. Since then, she has been staying in her parental house. According to the application, the revisionist has been earning Rs.80,000/- per month, as his salary, as a Physical Training Instructor in a school and he also earns Rs.20,000/- from his property at Bareilly, whereas, it is submitted that the respondent no. 1 is not able to maintain herself.
In the instant case, the respondent no.1 has stated that the salary of the revisionist is Rs. 80,000/- in Abu Dhabi. The revisionist did not disclose his income in his objection. The revisionist did not disclose his income or his salary in Abu Dhabi in his affidavit given in his examination in chief. He simply denied the averments with regard to his salary. As stated, the revisionist tried to persuade the Court that he spends some amount on his own. He filed certain documents as Annexure 4 to 7 of his affidavit filed in his examination in chief. In his cross-examination, he revealed that he receives Rs. 50,000/-, approximately, as salary. The court fixed his salary as Rs. 60,000/-. It cannot be faulted. The court has fixed the maintenance keeping in view all the circumstances. As stated, the court did not divulge in the minor details as to how much money the revisionist is spending on his mother. But the revisionist also did not divulge as to how much he spends on his mother. The impugned order reveals that the order of maintenance has been passed based on the income and the circumstances in which the parties are in.
this Court is of the view that there appears to be nothing wrong, illegal or improper in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANANTH PAI