Ajay Raturi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the impugned order dated 24.08.2022, passed in Case No. 57 of 2022, Smt. Anjana Raturi & Another Vs. Ajay Raturi, by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (“the case”).

Today, none is present for the revisionist. It is an admitted revision.

Heard learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The respondent no.2 is personally present. She also addressed the Court.

It appears that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), was filed by the respondent no.2, Smt. Anjana Raturi, seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter, Km. Advika Raturi, the respondent no.3, from the revisionist. This application was filed on 05.07.2016. It was registered as Case No.243 of 2016 (“the maintenance case”). The maintenance case was decided on 13.12.2021. The application seeking maintenance was allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to the respondent no.2, his wife and Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no.3, the daughter. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance, which is the basis of the case. Initially when proceedings were initiated in the case, a Criminal Revision No.275 of 2022, was preferred by the revisionist (“the first revision”). The first revision was decided on 13.06.2022. That order is at Annexure 15 to the revision. In fact, in that order, the Case Number of case has inadvertently been mentioned as 37 of 2022, instead of 57 of 2022.

During the course of hearing of the first revision, it was not pressed during admission. The Court disposed of the first revision observing as hereunder:-

“Instant revision has yet not been admitted. The revisionist does not want to press it now. He wants to raise all the issues before the court in which the proceedings for recovery of maintenance of arrears is undergone. The revisionist is definitely free to do so.

Since the revision has yet not been admitted and it is not being pressed, it stands disposed of accordingly.”

Thereafter, the revisionist filed objections in the case. The copy of objection is Annexure-16 to the revision. By the impugned order, the objections filed by the revisionist were not accepted. In fact, the court below observed that the revisionist is abusing the process of law. Rs. 20,000/- cost was imposed on the revisionist and he was required to pay entire arrears of maintenance till 02.09.2022, along with the costs. This order is impugned.

In this revision, on 02.09.2022, notices were issued to the private respondents. On that date, it has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that he had paid entire dues.

The respondent no.2, Smt. Anjana Raturi, submits that the revisionist is not paying any amount to her. He is delaying the payment on one pretext or another.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that the revision is not maintainable. The revisionist is not paying arrears of maintenance as due to him. He is calculating as if he has to pay the maintenance from 04.04.2019, whereas, the interim maintenance order was passed on 15.11.2017. From that date, as per orders of the court, the revisionist is under liability to pay the arrears.

In fact, the revisionist has not given details of the money, what was due to him in his calculation and what he has paid. Although, he has given a chart along with the revision to reveal that he had paid Rs. 8,12,000/- as maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3. In his objections, in the case, the revisionist has taken a stand that he was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/-per month as maintenance from 04.04.2019, by this Court, which he has been paying regularly since then.

It may be noted that, in fact, in the maintenance case, on 16.11.2017, an application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as interim maintenance. On 04.04.2019, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1373 of 2018, this Court took notice of the fact that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the revisionist had also been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code, he has further been directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, as interim maintenance. Therefore, from that date, it was directed that the revisionist would pay Rs. 15,000/-, per month, as interim maintenance. The court has not said that prior to 04.04.2019, interim maintenance shall not be paid. The order dated 16.11.2017, was not disturbed as such.

In the impugned order, the court has observed on this aspect and rejected the objections of the revisionist. This Court does not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly rejected the objections raised by the revisionist. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.