Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nUttarakhand High Court\nAnoop Prakash Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 June, 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL\n\n           Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2022\n\n\nAnoop Prakash Bhatt                       ...... Revisionist\n\n                              Vs.\n\nState of Uttarakhand and Another        ..... Respondents\n\n\n\nMr. Tajhar Qayyum and Mr. Ganesh Chand Sharma, Advocates\nfor the revisionist.\nMr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. assisted by Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief\nHolder for the State of Uttarakhand.\n\n\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n\nHon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)\n\n              The challenge in this revision is made to\n\nthe order dated 08.04.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.\n\n11 of 2022, Smt. Pamita Vs. Anoop Prakash Bhatt, by\n\nthe court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun.\n\nBy the impugned order, an application for interim\n\nmaintenance,     filed   by   the   respondent   no.2    ("the\n\napplicant") has been allowed and the revisionist has\n\nbeen directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to her as\n\ninterim maintenance.\n\n\n2.            Heard learned counsel for the revisionist\n\nand perused the record.\n\n\n3.            Learned counsel for the revisionist has\n\nraised particularly two points as follows:\n                            2\n      (i)    the applicant had concealed her profession\n\n      in an affidavit, which she filed in support of her\n\n      application under Section 125 of the Code of\n\n      Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). She is a\n\n      registered Pharmacist. But she has disclosed her\n\n      profession as a house maker. It is argued that the\n\n      applicant is registered with the Uttarakhand\n\n      Pharmacy Council in the year 2007 and she got\n\n      her registration renewed twice. Reference has\n\n      been made to annexure No. 3 & 5 to the revision,\n\n      and;\n\n      (ii)   In the impugned order, this fact has not\n\n      been considered that the applicant twice renewed\n\n      her registration with the Uttarakhand Pharmacy\n\n      Council.\n\n\n4.           It appears that the applicant filed an\n\napplication under Section 125 of the Code seeking\n\nmaintenance from the revisionist. During pendency of\n\nthe application, she also moved an application for the\n\ninterim maintenance, which has been allowed by the\n\nimpugned order.\n                              3\n5.           In the impugned order, the factum of the\n\napplicant, having been registered with the Uttarakhand\n\nPharmacy Counsel, has been discussed. It is recorded\n\nthat in the year 2018, the applicant was married. On a\n\nmatrimonial site also she disclosed herself as an\n\nunemployed. The court also observed that had the\n\napplicant been working as a pharmacist, this fact would\n\nhave come to the notice of the applicant. In fact, during\n\nthe course of argument, the Court asked learned counsel\n\nfor the revisionist as to whether the applicant had ever\n\nworked as a Pharmacist? Had the revisionist ever\n\nnoticed that the applicant is working as a Pharmacist?\n\nIn reply to it, it is submitted that in the month of April,\n\n2018, the parties were married and in the month of July,\n\n2018, the applicant had left the company of the\n\nrevisionist. During that period, he did not notice that\n\nshe was working as a Pharmacist.\n\n\n6.           The    applicant    is   registered   with   the\n\nPharmacy Council, but according to her, she is not\n\nworking anywhere or not earning from that profession,\n\nin any manner. According to her, she is working as a\n\nhouse maker. Merely, because the applicant is registered\n\nwith the pharmacy council, it cannot be said that she is\n\nnot a house maker.\n                                    4\n7.                This is a revision where the scope is quite\n\nlimited      to   examine    the       correctness,    legality    and\n\nproprietary of any impugned judgment and order, etc. In\n\nthe impugned order, the court below has discussed\n\nthese aspects of the applicant, having been registered\n\nwith the Uttarakhand Pharmacy Council, and drawn a\n\nconclusion, which, in any manner, cannot be said to be\n\nnot in accordance with law.\n\n\n8.                Therefore, there is no reason to make any\n\ninterference in the matter. The impugned order is in\n\naccordance with law. Accordingly, the revision deserves\n\nto be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.\n\n\n\n9.                The revision is dismissed in limine.\n\n\n\n\n                                            (Ravindra Maithani, J.)\n                                                      09.06.2022\nRavi Bisht