Shantanu Agarwal vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The revisionist, Shantanu Agarwal, challenged an order dated 03.08.2022, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. This order allowed an application for interim maintenance filed by respondent no. 2, Smt. Nishi, for herself and respondent no. 3, Aaransh. The revisionist was directed to pay ₹10,000/- to Smt. Nishi and ₹5,000/- to Aaransh as interim maintenance from the date of the application. The application for maintenance was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging harassment for dowry and separation. The revisionist contested this, stating he never harassed his wife and she left voluntarily. He admitted the marriage and the existence of a child. The revisionist claimed his monthly salary was ₹8,200/- and that a previous company he ran had been closed.

Held

The High Court held that on merits, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order of interim maintenance. The Court noted that the Family Court had deeply and extensively considered the revisionist's arguments regarding his income. Specifically, the Family Court observed that the revisionist had cancelled his GST registration for 'Shaan Trading Company' shortly after being asked for details about his relation to it, suggesting he was involved in business. The Court also found it questionable how the revisionist could pay a loan installment of ₹21,499/- if his salary was only ₹8,200/-. Regarding the telephonic conversation (Annexure No. 6), the Court found various issues with it, including how the husband obtained it and that isolated lines do not make sense. While acknowledging the matrimonial discord and the potential for amicable settlement through mediation, the Court stated that calling private respondents to the High Court for mediation was not appropriate. The Court also noted that since the private respondents were not before it, it would refrain from making any order regarding payment of arrears in installments. However, it suggested that if such an application were moved before the court below, it would likely be considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order directing interim maintenance is legal, proper, and correct, considering the revisionist's financial capacity and the evidence presented? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 125 CrPC). Petitioner's arguments: The revisionist argued that the Family Court erred in determining his financial means, asserting his monthly salary is only ₹8,200/- and that a pay certificate to this effect was not considered. He also stated that a company he previously ran has since closed. He expressed willingness to reunite with his wife and son and pay interim maintenance, but found the amount ordered, payable from the application date, to be unaffordable. He suggested mediation might resolve the family dispute and that arrears could be paid in installments. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State or respondents regarding the merits of the interim maintenance order. However, the Family Court's observations, as noted in the judgment, indicate that the revisionist's claim of low income was questioned due to his cancellation of GST registration for 'Shaan Trading Company' and his ability to pay a loan installment of ₹21,499/- on a purported ₹8,200/- salary.