LAWS(UTN)-2020-2-56

AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On February 27, 2020
AJAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 550 of 2017, Smt. Tanuja vs. Ajay Kumar, by the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, 'the case'). By the impugned order an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') has been allowed ex parte and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent no.2.

(2.) Facts, necessary for disposal of the revision briefly stated are that the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code seeking maintenance from the revisionist. The application was filed on 19.11.2015. According to the application the revisionist and the respondent no.2 married on 04.02.2014. After the marriage, respondent no.2 was harassed and tortured for the want of dowry. She was beaten up and insulted and finally, she was expelled from her matrimonial house on 18.05.2015and since then respondent no.2 is staying with her widow mother. She is unable to maintain herself. She is dependent on her mother, whereas the revisionist is a Government teacher who gets Rs. 41,000/- per month salary. In the case, the revisionist filed his objection. According to him the application has been moved on false grounds; dowry was never demanded; the revisionist has taken care of respondent no.2. It has been admitted that since 18.05.2015 respondent no.2 has been staying away but according to the revisionist she left his house on her own. It has also been averred in the objection that the revisionist is paying maintenance amount under the Domestic Violence case.

(3.) During the hearing of the case, the revisionist subsequently did not appear. The case proceeded ex parte against him. Respondent no.2 and her mother were examined as witness. Based on the evidence, by the impugned order, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to respondent no. 2. It is under challenge.