The court affirmed the right to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., considering domestic abuse as a valid reason for the award.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 67 of 2022, Arti Devi and Another vs. Rakesh Kumar, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the application filed by respondent no.1 (wife) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of B.N.S.S., 2023) and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of ₹3,000/-, per month, to the respondents.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent no.1 (wife) was married to the revisionist (husband) on 03.03.2020. From the inception of the marriage, respondent no.1 (wife) was subjected to physical and emotional abuse at the hands of the revisionist (husband). This abuse intensified during her pregnancy and continued even after the birth of their son. Following a police report and a failed reconciliation attempt, the abuse escalated to such an extent that she attempted suicide by poisoning herself and eventually left the company of the revisionist (husband). Seeing no way out of this ordeal, respondent no.1 (wife) moved an application before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of B.N.S.S., 2023) on 10.06.2022. The court partly allowed the application, directing the revisionist (husband) to pay a sum of ₹3,000/-, per month, to the respondents – ₹2,000/- to respondent no.1 (wife) and ₹1,000/- to respondent no.2 (minor son). Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist (husband) has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist (husband) submits that the lower court's judgment is flawed, being contrary to the evidence and law, and is based on conjectures and surmises. He further submits that the maintenance application filed by respondent no.1 (wife) was a form of harassment, as she allegedly left the matrimonial home voluntarily on 21.05.2021 and exhibited cruel behavior. The learned Judge failed to consider these facts and did not properly scrutinize the false and unproven allegations made by respondent no.1 (wife). Furthermore, the court made a gross error in assessing the petitioner's income as ₹12,000/-, per month, while his actual earnings from poultry farming are meager. Therefore, the maintenance awarded at ₹3,000/-, per month, is excessive and unsustainable.

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist (husband) and from perusal of the impugned judgment and order, this Court upholds the judgment and order dated 11.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 67 of 2022, Arti Devi and Another vs. Rakesh Kumar, directing the revisionist (husband) to pay ₹3,000/-, per month, in maintenance to his wife and minor son. This Court finds that respondent no.1 (wife) had valid reasons to leave the matrimonial home due to physical and emotional abuse, as substantiated by the police report and her suicide attempt. The revisionist (husband) claims that respondent no.1 (wife) left voluntarily and that the maintenance amount was excessive in light of his income, are found to be without merit. This Court is also of the opinion that the award of maintenance is reasonable and within financial capacity of the revisionist-husband.

5. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed in limine (Pankaj Purohit, J.)