Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand and another

his objection that on 08.06.2018 an FIR was lodged at Police Station Khatima, wherein the entire case was found to be false and the final report was supplied in the court, wherein it is submitted that the respondent no.2 is wife of the revisionist. Hence this fact is clear that the respondent-wife is having valid reason to stay separately from the revisionist-husband. 3

9. So far as the fact whether any negligence adopted by the revisionist-husband in maintenance of respondent-wife, it is stated by her that she is less educated woman unable to maintain herself and thus the court below held that the revisionist-husband has adopted negligence in maintaining the respondent-wife. The next question whether the respondent-wife is not able to maintain herself, it is stated by the respondent- wife in her application that the revisionist-husband is having a medical store from where he gets ₹30,000/- and in total earns ₹60,000/- per month. Thus on the basis of this the court reached to this conclusion that the respondent-wife is unable to maintain herself while the revisionist-husband is having sufficient means and accordingly partly allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of ₹5,000/, per month, to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of claim-petition by the 10th of each month.

10. In this view of the matter, I did not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the court below and there is hardly any scope of interference. Hence the criminal revision fails and is dismissed.

11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned for compliance. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.06.2025 4