KAVITA PANT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fact which emerges and are admitted by the parties are that in this present revision (1) the factum of marriage having solemnized between the revisionist and respondent no. 2 on 04.12.2011 as per the Hindu rights and rituals is not denied, (2) it is also not in controversy that after the marriage both the revisionist and respondent no. 2 lived their life as husband and wife and they have discharged matrimonial obligations. At a later stage some matrimonial discord germinated between the two resulting into initiation of the proceedings for claim of maintenance at the behest of the revisionist by filing a application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by filing the same on 08.07.2015 on the ground that though she is qualified having done her post-graduation in history, but at the time when the family feud has arisen she was not profitably engaged anywhere and she was not earning and was entirely dependant on the earning of her husband. The pleading to the said effect was raised in paragraph 11 of the said application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) In support of her contention with regards to quantifying the appropriate maintenance to be awarded to her she has taken a specific plea that the respondent no. 2 is working on the post of manager in Reliance Life Insurance Company and the income according to the wife, which accruing to him is about Rs. 90,000/- per month and, hence, she has claimed for a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month to be paid to her. On being noticed in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. registered as Case No. 173 of 2015 'Smt. Kavita Pant vs. Shri Trilochan Pant' the respondent had put in appearance and in defense he has submitted his response to the pleading of paragraph 11 and 13 of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In paragraph 6 wherein he has given an absolutely vague reply pertaining to the income accruing to the wife and she being unemployed, and the fact pertaining to that the respondent no. 2 was having an earning of Rs. 90,000/- remained unreplied as there was no specific denial was made by the respondent husband.

(3.) However, the said pleading was sought to be qualified in the additional plea, which has been made by respondent no. 2 in his application/objection as filed before the Court below. In the objection he has come up with a case that the revisionist is not entitled for any maintenance because on account of the fact that she being a highly qualified lady, she is profitably engaged in a "private company"?, as it has been pleaded in paragraph 14 of the objection filed by the husband respondent.