Advocates:
['M S BISHT', '', 'VIJAY KHANDURI', 'D K TYAGI', '', 'ASHUTOSH POSTI', 'SUMAN NAUTIYAL']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2017

Smt. Anita Dabral

….

Revisionist

Versus

Pramod Dabral

….

Respondent

Mr. Mohindar Singh Bisht, Advocate for the revisionist.

None present for the respondent, despite service of notice.

Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

Criminal revision is directed against

the judgment and order dated 24.03.2017,

passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh,

District Dehradun, in Misc. Case no. 50 of 2015,

Smt. Anita Dabral vs Pramod Dabral, whereby

the application filed by the revisionist-wife under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the said

court.

2)

Heard Mr. Mohinder Singh Bisht,

learned counsel for the revisionist and perused

the material available on record.

3)

Brief facts of the case are that the

revisionist-wife

filed

an

application

under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before Addl. Judge,

Family Court, Rishikesh, seeking maintenance

from the respondent-husband on the ground

that

marriage

between

the

parties

was

solemnized on 02.10.2006, as per Hindu rites

2

and rituals, and handsome dowry was given by

the parents of the revisionist. After the

marriage,

the

respondent-husband

started

harassing the revisionist-wife for non-fulfillment

of demand of dowry and did not take care of her

and even failed to maintain her. It is also stated

in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

that the revisionist is dependent on her widowed

mother, who lives in village, and has no source

of income to maintain herself.

4)

Respondent-husband filed his written

statement stating therein that the revisionist-

wife is not unemployed; rather she opened a

shop of Ayurveda Panchkarma Therapy and

Massage. The said shop is in the name of the

revisionist, duly registered with the Department

of Labour, and she is earning Rs.15,000/- to

Rs.20,000/- per month. In this regard, the

respondent filed documentary evidence, viz.

visiting card of revisionist-wife, photocopy of

papers of the shop, registration certificate

granted by Labour Department before the court

below.

5)

It is contended by the revisionist-wife

in the application filed under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. that the respondent-husband is running

a motor workshop. Earlier, the respondent-

husband was having a truck and he was earning

3

a handsome income from it. It is also contended

that since the revisionist-wife is unable to

maintain herself, therefore, the respondent-

husband be directed to pay interim maintenance

to her.

6)

Learned Judge, Family Court has

considered the respective pleadings of the

parties and on the basis of photocopies of

documents filed by the respondent-husband

showing that there is a shop of Ayurvedic

Panchkarma Therapy and Massage centre,

which is registered with the Labour Department,

in the name of the revisionist-wife, dismissed the

interim maintenance application filed by the

revisionist-wife on the ground that she has not

rebutted such averments and had concealed the

material facts from the court below.

7)

Learned counsel for the revisionist

would submit that the shop in question was

opened, but there was no earning from the said

shop and spa center has been opened in a tin

shed (chappar), but the court below did not

consider

this

aspect

of

the

matter

and

committed illegality in rejecting her application

filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

8)

As per the case of the respondent-

husband, he is not running a motor workshop.

4

Rather, he is a mechanic and is earning Rs.1500

– 2000 per month. The statement of the

respondent-husband

that

he

is

somehow

earning Rs. 50-100 by doing mechanic work per

day is unbelievable. It appears that the

respondent-husband has not disclosed his

correct income before the court below.

9)

Learned court below has committed

illegality in not recording