Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand Anr

between the parties but reconciliation could not be done and as such the case was heard on merits.

7. On the basis of pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar came to the conclusion that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist and is residing at her parental house and is having no source of income and is dependent on the revisionist for her maintenance. It was further recorded that revisionist is having adequate means, however, he has deprived respondent no.2 from maintenance. It was also recorded that revisionist had taken no steps for bringing her back to his house and as such it was held that respondent no.2 is residing at her parental house for justifiable reasons.

8. Learned Judge, Family Court, on the basis of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 4 903 asked the parties to file their respective affidavits, regarding their income and liabilities, and on the basis of the documentary evidence filed by the parties and evidence recorded, learned Court recorded a finding that revisionist had purchased a plot at Kotdwar on

05.01.2021 and on the basis of the bank statement which were filed for a period from 30.04.2019 to

10.12.2020 it was concluded that on a monthly basis an amount of ₹ 1.00 lac to ₹ 2.00 lacs was being either deposited or withdrawn from the said account. It was also observed that the latest bank details were not filed by the revisionist as such it was inferred that the revisionist is concealing his income. With regard to the income of respondent no.2, it was recorded that on the basis of the affidavit filed by her she was having no source of income and was fully dependent on her parents. As such, the Family Court, vide judgment dated

15.09.2022, allowed the application filed by respondent no.2 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance @ ₹15,000/- per month to respondent no.2 from the date of making the application i.e.

21.09.2021.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 5

10. The revisionist, who appeared in person, contended that he is out of job since 07.12.2020 and after decrease of Corona pandemic he had tried to find a job, however, as his passport was seized by the police authorities at the instigation of respondent no.2, as such he is still unemployed. He contended that the said fact was stated before the Family Court and has also been stated in the affidavit filed in the present revision. He also contended that at present he is only earning ₹15,000/- per month.

11. Vide order dated 19.06.2025, revisionist was directed to file an affidavit specifying the amount paid by him and, in response, he had filed the affidavit specifying that he has paid ₹ 3,46,000 to respondent no.2 after the order dated 15.09.2022 and has admitted the fact that he has purchased a plot on 05.01.2021, however, he gifted the said plot to his mother. Revisionist submitted that he had, in fact, offered the said plot to respondent no.2, however, she had refused to accept the same and the said fact is also recorded in the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Hon’ble Court in FA No.180/2023.

12. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel respondent no.2 submitted that till date an amount of ₹ 3,25,000 is outstanding and in criminal misc. Execution 6 case no.56/2024 and 36/2025 an amount of ₹ 1,60,000 and ₹1,65,000 was shown due, however, the learned Judge, Family Court had recalled the warrant issued against the revisionist only on a deposit made by him of ₹ 5,000/- As such, still ₹ 3,20,000/- is due on the revisionist.

13. With regard to the refusal of acceptance of offer of plot at Kotdwar, it was submitted that it was settled between the parties that the revisionist will give the plot to respondent no.2 and will also return all the ornaments lying with him but as he had agreed to give only the plot, as such the said offer was refused by respondent no.2. It was further submitted that in the proceedings in Domestic Violence Act, revisionist had admitted the fact that he is in possession of the ornaments and the case under the Domestic Violence Act was decided in favour of respondent no.2, against which appeal preferred by the revisionist was also dismissed, which subsequently was challenged in C482 petition no.2504/2023.

14. It has been contended on behalf of respondent no.2 that when the said plot of the revisionist was to be attached in the execution proceedings then a gift deed was registered by the revisionist in favour of his mother.

15. The scope of interference in the criminal 7 revision is limited. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court is based on the pleadings made by the parties and the evidence adduced before it. The Court, in criminal revision, cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence and only has to see the illegality, if any, committed by the Family Court. The learned Judge, Family Court, has taken into consideration the fact that the revisionist was having adequate means to support the respondent no.2, however, he had failed to discharge his duties and, thus, the respondent no.2 is entitled to get maintenance @ ₹ 15,000/- per month.

16. A perusal of record also reveals that the revisionist is taking different stands at different stages. In his reply filed on 04.01.2022 to the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., revisionist had stated that his passport was seized by the police authorities on the instigation of respondent no.2 and that he was not having any plot at Khumbichaur, Kotdwar. Thus, the revisionist was denying the fact of purchase of plot at Khumbhichaur, Kotdwar at the initial stage when a reply was filed by him on 04.01.2022 before the Judge, Family Court. It is an admitted fact that the plot was purchased by him on

05.01.2021 much before the filing of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent no.2 on 21.09.2021. The 8 said fact of purchase of plot on 05.01.2021 was also proved before the Family Court. Similarly, at the initial stage, the revisionist contended that on the instigation of respondent no.2 his passport was seized by the police authorities and the said fact was also stated in the reply dated 04.01.2022 filed by the revisionist before the Judge, Family Court. The said fact was also stated in the affidavit filed by the revisionist before this Court on

15.10.2022, however, in a subsequent affidavit filed in July, 2025, it has been stated that his passport was lost. The revisionist had also not filed any latest bank statement before the Judge, Family Court. Thus, it is clear that the revisionist had stated wrong facts before this Court as well as the Family Court.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the impugned judgment. The revision lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.)

08.08.2025 Rajni RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3 701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4F C80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A 878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN 9