Judgment Reserved on : 14.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 11.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.410 of 2024 Satya Prakash Naithani ....Revisionist Vs.

Smt. Punam Naithani & Another …..Respondent Presence:

Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

None Present for the Respondent.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J

1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 107 of 2020, whereby the application filed by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 under Section 125 of the Code has been allowed. The learned Court has directed the Revisionist to pay maintenance of rupees twenty-five thousand each per month to Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, totalling rupees fifty thousand per month, from the date of the application.

2. The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No. 1 was solemnised on 25.09.1998, and Respondent No. 2 was born out of the wedlock on 30.11.1999. Certain matrimonial differences subsequently arose between the parties, and the Revisionist has not been residing with the Respondents since the year 2005. The Respondents have continued to reside in the ancestral property situated at Clement Town, Dehradun, in which the Revisionist is stated to have an undivided share.

3. The record further reveals that Respondent No. 1 has admitted in her evidence that she has been providing tuitions from the same premises. Respondent No. 2 holds a B.Ed. degree and, as reflected from the bank statements placed on record, has been employed as a teacher in a private school and was drawing a monthly salary during the relevant period.

4. The Revisionist states that he met with a major accident in the year 2021, 2022, in which his collar bone, ribs, and wrist bone were fractured, and that he has been unable to work since then. According to him, he has no permanent employment and had earlier been working privately as a draughtsman.

5. The record indicates that the application under Section 125 of the Code was filed in the year 2020, almost fifteen years after the separation, and no explanation was offered as to how the Respondents sustained themselves during this entire period.

6. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance of rupees fifty thousand per month without assessing the actual income of the Revisionist.

7. It was submitted that the Respondents produced no documentary evidence to establish their earning capacity.

8. Learned counsel of the Revisionist further submitted that Respondent No.2 is a major daughter aged about twenty-five years and is employed as a teacher, and therefore, no maintenance could have been legally awarded to her.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the bank statements placed on record clearly indicate that she has been receiving salary from May 2023 onwards.

10. Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No.1 herself admitted that the total monthly expenses of the Respondents are approximately rupees fifteen thousand, and in this background, the award of rupees fifty thousand per month is wholly unjustified.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the Revisionist suffered serious injuries in an accident during the period between 2021 and 2022, and that at present he has no stable source of income. It was contended that the impugned judgment is unreasoned, perverse, and based on conjectures.

12. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Respondents are entitled to maintenance. It was stated that the Revisionist, being the husband and father, cannot be permitted to evade his legal obligation to maintain the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.1, who is dependent upon him.

13. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist and learned State Counsel. None appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite service.

Perused the material on record