IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to interim maintenance from her husband, especially when there is a significant disparity in their incomes.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to order dated 06.06.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.94 of 2022, Reena Chauhan Vs. Aman Rajput, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (“the case”). By which, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code. According to it, the applicant and the respondent were married on 16.02.2021. Thereafter, the respondent was harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry. She is not able to maintain herself whereas, the revisionist is a lawyer and earns Rs.50,000 - Rs.60,000/- per month. In the case, an application for interim maintenance was also filed by the respondent. The revisionist did file objections denying all the claims of harassment and torture. It is the case of the revisionist that, in fact, it is the respondent, who has been harassing the revisionist.

4. It has been the case of the revisionist that their marriage was love marriage; with regard to the income, the revisionist writes that he is a junior lawyer and gets Rs.5,000/- per month; he has no other income whereas, the respondent is highly educated person and who works in the office of a lawyer and gets income.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that he is a junior lawyer; he hardly earns Rs.5,000/- per month; the respondent also works in the office of a lawyer and gets income.

6. In the impugned order, the court had discussed the claims of the parties. In fact, the respondent had demanded Rs.40,000/- per month as interim maintenance. It appears that the parties are staying separate for the last two years.

7. The respondent has been getting Rs.2,000/- per month in the proceedings under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the impugned order, this fact has also been taken into consideration. The court has concluded that there is no such evidence which may establish that the respondent also gets money or she is earning.

8. Having considered all the factors, the court below has awarded Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

9. There is nothing on record which, in fact, establishes that the respondent earns and she has means to survive. By the impugned order, Rs.4,000/- interim maintenance has been awarded.

10. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is in accordance with law. It does not require any interference. Accordingly, the instant revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

11. The revision is dismissed in limine.