HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.949 of 2024 Hargovind Singh ...Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent Present:- Mr. Sachin Veer Singh, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The revisionist proposes to challenge the order dated 04.09.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.295 of 2022, Smt. Poonam Sagar and others vs. Hargovind, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the private respondents. The revision is delayed by 20 days. 2. The Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2024 has been filed. There are good grounds to condone the delay. The Delay Condonation Application (IA No.2 of 2024) is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that 04.09.2024 was the date was fixed for conciliation. The revisionist had already prepared an affidavit of the assets and 2 liabilities which he could not file; the impugned order is passed by the court below; hence it is bad in the eyes of law. 5. It appears that the proceedings of the case were initiated based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code by Smt. Poonam Sagar, the respondent no.2, who is wife of the revisionist. 6. According to respondent no.2, she and revisionist were married on 23.01.2008 and they were blessed with two children. But, now the revisionist is not maintaining her. She has no source to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist is an advocate and he has agriculture income also. He earns about Rs.1,10,000/-per month, therefore, she may be provided Rs.60,000/-per month as interim maintenance. The application for interim maintenance was objected to by the revisionist, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent no.2 is staying separate without any reasonable cause. She earns by giving tuitions. She is highly qualified. According to the revisionist, she hardly earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. 7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay total Rs.20,000/- to his wife and two children. 8. Insofar as, the reason for staying separate is concerned, in her application under Section 125 of the Code, the respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the revisionist 3 would give her beatings, due to which, she is staying separate. According to the respondent no.2, the revisionist had extra- marital relationship with other woman, for that reason also he would beat up the private respondents. 9. In his objection, the revisionist had denied all the allegations for the demand of dowry and beating made to the respondent no.2. The revisionist has filed objection against an application under Section 125 of the Code. The revisionist has not stated as to why the private respondents are staying separate from him. 10. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the revisionist as to what is the ground that has been stated by the revisionist in his objections with regard to the reasons for staying separate from him? He would submit that, as such, no reason has been assigned by the revisionist. 11. There are divergent views with regard to the reasons for respondent no.2 staying separate. It would find determination once parties are permitted to lead evidence. It is categorical case of the private respondents that they are not able to maintain themselves. It has not been shown by the revisionist as to how, the respondent no.2 earns any money for survival. In his objection, he has admitted that he is a lawyer, who was busy in courts at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. It may be noted that despite opportunities having been given, the revisionist did not file an affidavit of his assets and liabilities. 4 12. It is a revision. The scope is quite restricted to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. In the instant case, the court below has considered the factual matrix and passed in the impugned order. 13. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in this revision. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 14. The revision is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.01.2025 Ravi