Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Rakshita Kandpal and Another – Appellants
Versus
Hemant Kandpal and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2018, Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2019
Decided On : 14-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : M.S. Pal, Apoorv Chauhan.
For the Respondents: Pooran Singh Rawat, M.A. Khan, Vipul Painuly.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the obligation of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife and child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - The court interpreted Section 125 to ensure maintenance for a wife and child, emphasizing the husband's duty to provide support, which influenced the decision to uphold the maintenance order.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a maintenance application filed by a wife seeking support for herself and her child after being expelled from her matrimonial home due to alleged harassment and dowry demands by her husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had sufficient reasons to live separately and was unable to maintain herself, while the husband had the means to provide maintenance, leading to the granting of maintenance.
Issues: Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code and if the amount awarded is adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming the interpretation of Section 125 that mandates maintenance for a wife and child when the husband has the means to provide it.
Result: The revisions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Since one and the same judgment and order has been challenged in both these revisions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. The parties shall be referred with reference to their position in CRLR No. 10 of 2018.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 11.12.2017, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 254 of 2012, Smt. Rakshita Kandpal and Another Vs. Dr. Hemant Kandpal, by the court of FamilyJudge, Nainital (“the case”). By it, an application filed by the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, seeking maintenance for herself and her son, revisionist no. 2-Master Laksh @ Lavlesh, has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to pay total Rs. 11,000/- (Rs.9,000/- to the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal and Rs. 2,000/- to the revisionist no. 2, Master Laksh @ Lavlesh), as maintenance.
5. In CRLR No. 10 of 2018, the revisionists have sought enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded in the case.
6. In CRLR No. 575 of 2019, the respondent has challenged the impugned order granting maintenance to the revisionists.
7. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal has died, as told by Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, who earlier appeared for the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal.
8. Since CRLR No. 575 of 2019 is an admitted revision, it is being decided, as an admitted revision has to be decided irrespective of the presence or absence of the parties. In the case of Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 144. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, held that:
“Whether it was an accused person or it was a complainant who has moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, if the High Court has issued a rule that rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner in the High Court is alive or dead, or whether he is represented in the Court by a legal practitioner.”
9. The case is based on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), filed by the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal. According to it, revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal and the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal were married on 27.11.2009, but after marriage, the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. She was tortured. She was treated badly. She gave birth to a child from the wedlock, but, finally, according to the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, she was expelled from her matrimonial house on 23.01.2012. Thereafter, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal did not take care of her. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal is an Assistant Professor in a university and gets Rs. 42,000/- per month as salary.
10. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal filed objections to the application filed under Section 125 of the Code. According to him, it is the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, who had made his life miserable. She would take quarrels and would try to lower his reputation in the society. Therefore, she had filed multiple litigations against him. According to the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal, the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, on her own, without any reason, left the company of the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal. She is a highly educated woman.
11. In evidence, on behalf of the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, she herself was examined and one witness, M.C. Pathak was also examined as PW2. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal also examined himself as a witness. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order passed in the case, the maintenance was granted.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionists would submit that now the husband of the revisionist no. 1, Smt. Rakshita Kandpal, has died, therefore, the order may not be disturbed.
13. The Court requested Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate to assist the Court in the
