Dhoop Chandra Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand Others

Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. S.K. Mandal, submitted that the trial court committed a serious error in granting maintenance to Respondent No. 3, who is an adult and, as per the Applicant, neither unemployed because of disability nor dependent upon him in any lawful manner. He contended that there was no credible medical evidence produced before the courts below to substantiate the claim of epilepsy or any other disabling condition. According to him, the medical certificate was procured subsequently from a private nursing home and cannot be relied upon to impose a recurring financial obligation on a person of his age and 2 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J. financial distress.

4. He further argued that he is suffering from multiple ailments and is under heavy financial strain, managing his own subsistence through borrowed resources. It was also contended that the trial court ignored the material fact that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are occupying his residential premises and collecting rent from seven commercial shops situated therein. He submitted that the burden of maintaining them is neither legal nor equitable in these circumstances.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contended that the application is a gross abuse of process, aimed solely at delaying the enforcement of lawful maintenance. It was submitted that the courts below have, upon a fair and detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, concluded that Respondent No. 3 cannot maintain herself on account of her medical condition.

6. Learned counsel pointed out that the Applicant had admitted in his deposition that his annual income was between `25 to 30 lakhs. Yet, he sought to evade his basic statutory obligation under Section 125 of the CrPC. 3 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents further argued that the property dispute set up by the Applicant was a red herring, and even if the Respondents were receiving some rental income, that would not negate their legal entitlement to maintenance in the absence of independent financial capacity. It was also emphasized that the findings of fact recorded by two courts concurrently cannot be revisited in an application under Section 482 CrPC, absent any jurisdictional infirmity or miscarriage of justice.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

9. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is narrow and circumscribed. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, and only in cases where a grave miscarriage of justice would otherwise result, or where the judicial process itself has been abused. It is well settled that this Court does not sit as a court of appeal over concurrent findings of fact, unless those findings are shown to be perverse, manifestly illegal, or rendered without 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J. jurisdiction.

10. In the present matter, the Applicant challenges the legality of orders passed under Section 125 CrPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 12.01.2023 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, on

25.06.2024. Upon appreciation of pleadings, oral testimonies, and supporting material, both courts concluded that Respondent No. 2, the wife of the Applicant, and Respondent No. 3, their unmarried daughter, were unable to maintain themselves and were legally entitled to maintenance from the Applicant.

11. The principal objection raised by the Applicant is that Respondent No. 3, having attained majority, is not entitled to maintenance. However, this argument overlooks the clear language of Section 125(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which entitles a major son or daughter to claim maintenance if, because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, such child is unable to maintain himself or herself. The courts below have accepted, based on pleadings and a subsequent medical certificate filed during the pendency of the present proceedings, that Respondent No. 3 suffers from 5 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J. epilepsy and remains dependent upon her mother.

12. Although it is true that the medical certificate in question was not filed during the trial, it has not been demonstrated by the Applicant that the same is forged, irrelevant, or entirely unauthentic. Moreover, the issue of whether the daughter suffers from a disabling condition was pleaded and discussed in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, and the revisional court has addressed it with appropriate reasoning. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to discard the medical opinion summarily or to conclude that its consideration has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

13. The Applicant has also emphasized the alleged rental income of the respondents from shops situated within the ancestral house. It is alleged that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are in exclusive possession of the property and are enjoying its usufruct. However, there is no clear or uncontested evidence to support this assertion. On the contrary, Respondent No. 2 has stated on affidavit that the shops are locked by the Applicant and no rent is being received, and that even basic amenities such as electricity were cut off until intervention by the local 6 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J. SDM. The trial court, upon evaluating this factual dispute, Applicant’s assertions unsubstantiated.

14. The Court also notes that the Applicant admitted in his cross-examination that his annual income ranged between `25 to 30 lakhs. Against this backdrop, the amount of `8,000/- awarded to the wife and `7,000/- to the daughter, both of whom are without stable sources of income, cannot be said to be disproportionate or unjustified. The plea of financial incapacity raised by the Applicant, a wholesale merchant owning immovable assets, does not inspire confidence, particularly when contrasted with his admissions on record.

15. The contention that the Applicant is aged and infirm, and therefore unable to maintain respondents, also loses significance in the absence of any specific medical proof to show that he is incapable of earning or managing his affairs. Age per se is not a defence to legal liability under Section 125 CrPC, unless accompanied by demonstrable incapacity or destitution, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 7 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J.

16. As regards the contention that the courts below ignored binding precedent or misapplied legal standards, this Court finds no merit in the submission. Both orders impugned in the present application have been duly considered under the statutory criteria under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the status of the marriage, the justification for living separately, the inability of the claimants to maintain themselves, and the means and neglect of the person from whom maintenance is sought. Each element has been addressed with adequate reasoning, and no material irregularity or jurisdictional infirmity is found.

17. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not intended re-evaluate factual determinations or to substitute this Court’s view for that of the lower courts. In the absence of any compelling error apparent on the face of the record or any evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or abuse of process, no case is made out for interference. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present application. The concurrent 8 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J. findings of fact returned by the trial court and the revisional court do not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed. Akash (Ashish Naithani, J.)

16.06.2025 9 Criminal Misc. Application No.87 of 2024, Dhoop Chandra Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors - Ashish Naithani J.