##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11552

Judgment Reserved on: 18.11.2025

Judgment Delivered on: 24.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No.751 of 2023

Shivam Kumar ......Revisionist

Vs.

State and others …..Respondent

Presence

Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision arises out of an order dated

25.07.2023, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court I, Udham Singh Nagar,

in Case No. 07 of 2022, “Vaishali vs. Shivam” instituted under Section 125

CrPC by Respondent No. 2.

2. As per the facts, the marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent

No. 2 was solemnized on 16.02.2021 according to Hindu rites and customs.

From the said wedlock, a daughter was born, who is arrayed as Respondent No.

3 through her natural guardian mother.

3. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for interim maintenance

alleging that she and the minor child had been subjected to cruelty and

harassment, that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home, and that she

had no independent source of income to maintain herself or the child. It was

asserted that the Revisionist is an advocate earning substantial income and has

neglected to maintain them.

4. The Revisionist filed objections to the interim maintenance

application admitting the marital relationship and the paternity of the child, but

1

Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2023, “Shivam Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others”

Ashish Naithani J.

##PAGE2##

2025:UHC:11552

disputing the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. It was asserted that

Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home voluntarily without sufficient

cause, that she is educated and capable of earning, and that she is not entitled to

interim maintenance.

5. The Revisionist further pleaded that he is a junior advocate, suffering

from cardiac ailments, has negligible income, and is dependent upon others for

his treatment and livelihood.

6. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Family Court passed the

impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month in favour

of Respondent No. 2 during the pendency of proceedings under Section 125

CrPC, holding that the wife had disclosed no income and that the husband could

not avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and minor child.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revisionist has preferred the present

Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC seeking setting aside of

the interim maintenance order.

8. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the impugned order

suffers from material illegality and is based on presumption rather than

evidence. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to properly assess

the income of the Revisionist and arbitrarily fixed a notional income without

any factual foundation.

9. It is argued that Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home of her

own volition without sufficient cause, and therefore, in view of Section 125

sub-section (4) CrPC, she is disentitled from claiming maintenance. Reliance is

placed on the charge sheet and other materials to contend that the allegation of

forced ouster was not substantiated.

10. Learned counsel for the Revisionist further submits that Respondent

No. 2 is well educated and was employed prior to marriage, and that material

was placed on record suggesting her continued engagement with a financial

institution. It is contended that the learned Family Court ignored these aspects

while granting interim maintenance.

2

Criminal Revision No. 751 of 2023, “Shivam Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others”

Ashish Naithani J.

##PAGE3##

2025:UHC:11552

11. It is also urged that the Revisionist is a junior advocate without a

stable practice, suffering from serious cardiac illness, and burdened with

medical expenses and family responsibilities, and that the grant of interim

maintenance without considering these circumstances has caused grave

prejudice.

12. Lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document