Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/529/2019 on 18 September, 2019
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
CRLR No. 529 of 2019 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. P.S. Bohra, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
The revisionist is the husband of respondent No. 2 and admittedly the marriage between them was solemnized on 20th February, 2018. As per the admitted case of the revisionist, he is working at TCS Company in the United States of America in the capacity of Software Engineer. Certain disputes amongst them arose at the time when immediately after the matrimony, the couple were on their honeymoon tour. Certain personal allegations with regard to the impotency of the revisionist were levlled by the respondent wife as against the revisionist, which gave the cause of action to her to institute the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
In her application, thus preferred under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., she has come up with the case that the revisionist has misbehaved with her and on 7th March, 2018, when they were on their honeymoon tour at Maldives, it was her case that she was physically assaulted and also humiliated by the revisionist. All these actions, which have jointly constituted to be the grounds for preferring an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., may not be relevant for consideration at this stage, when the application for the grant of interim maintenance is being considered.
As per the pleadings, which has been raised by the respondent No. 2, before the Court below it was to the effect that the revisionist was engaged as a Software Engineer in the TCS Company and he was having an income of Rs.2,80,000/- p.m..
In objection to the application for the grant of interim maintenance, i.e. paper No. 18-A as filed by the revisionist, he has refuted the said figure as projected by the respondent No.2 with regard to the actual income accruing to the revisionist and has contended to qualify his argument from the view point that as a matter of fact he is engaged as Trainee Software Engineer and the income accruing to him is only Rs.1 lac p.m. As soon as the revisionist controverts the figure of income, which is accruing to him on account of his aforesaid engagement, it is the burden, which has been casted upon him to show that the income which was actually incurring to him and in relation thereto in order to substantiate his case, he ought to have produced the document atleast the salary bill or the salary statement, which was being actually paid to him by his employer.
In the absence of there being any evidence led to the contrary, the Court has prima face treated the income projected by the respondent No. 2 as to be true apparently and has determined the maintenance to be paid @ Rs. 50,000/- p.m. The argument, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the figure of income shown by the wife in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a correct figure and, if that be so, when, he refutes the figure projected by the wife, then the burden shift upon him, particularly, when he claim income accruing to him was only Rs.1 lac and it was he, who has to discharge his duty by leading evidence that the actual income coming in his hand is Rs. 1 lac and there is nothing on record as such to show that.
Besides this, the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist with regard to his status at which he is engaged, i.e. Trainee Software Engineer is also a fact, which cannot be borne out from the record and rather it is contrary to the pleadings raised by him and even his own objection, which he has preferred to the application under Section 125 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
In such circumstances, this Court is slightly handicap to determine at this stage as to what is the actual income accruing to the revisionist in order to commensurate as to what would be the adequate maintenance, which is to be paid to the respondent No. 2.
In such an eventuality, instead prolonging the controversy between them, this Court is of the view that the Revision can be disposed of, which would also be in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of the parties to the litigation for curbing short the period of litigation by requesting the Family Court, Haridwar to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself on its own merit within a period of three months from today. However, it is made clear that any observation, which has been made in the above paragraph of the present judgment may not be extracted for the purposes of an independent adjudication of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, for a period of three months, the revisionist would continue to remit an a amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid as directed to be paid to respondent No. 2 by the impugned order.
However, as far as the maintenance, which has been otherwise determined to be paid from the date of application, that would be considered by the learned Family Court at the time of final adjudication of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Subject to the above observation, the impugned order is upheld and the Revision is hereby dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 18.09.2019 Shiv