##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11373

Reserved on 19.11.2025

Delivered on 19.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No.108 of 2024

Smt. Nusrat ......Revisionist

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Another …..Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

1. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred

under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, read with Section 19 sub-section (4) of the

Family Courts Act, assailing the judgment and order dated

19.01.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar,

District Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 57 of 2022, whereby

the application filed by the Revisionist under Section 125

CrPC seeking maintenance was rejected.

2. The marriage between the Revisionist and

1

Criminal Revision No. 108 of 2024 “Smt. Nusrat vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.”

Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:11373

Respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 12.05.2012 according

to Muslim rites and customs. From the wedlock, two

children were born. It is the case of the Revisionist that she

was subjected to cruelty and harassment after marriage and

was ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home.

3. Alleging neglect and refusal on the part of

Respondent No. 2 to maintain her, the Revisionist instituted

proceedings under Section 125 CrPC before the Family

Court, Vikasnagar, claiming monthly maintenance.

4. Respondent No. 2 contested the application and

filed objections, disputing the allegations and asserting that

the Revisionist was capable of maintaining herself. Affidavits

of assets and liabilities were filed by both sides.

5. Upon consideration of the material on record, the

Family Court, by the impugned order dated 19.01.2024,

rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC, principally

holding that the Revisionist was able to maintain herself

and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance.

6. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the Revisionist has

approached this Court in revision.

2

Criminal Revision No. 108 of 2024 “Smt. Nusrat vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.”

Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:11373

7. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that

the Family Court committed a manifest error of law in

rejecting the maintenance application on mere assumptions

regarding the Revisionist’s alleged ability to maintain herself.

It was argued that there was no reliable evidence on record

to establish that the Revisionist had any regular or

independent source of income.

8. Learned counsel contended that the Family Court

wrongly treated the existence of agricultural land in the

name of the parents of the Revisionist as indicative of her

income, without examining whether the Revisionist had any

control, share, or actual income therefrom.

9. It was further argued that the Family Court failed

to apply the settled legal test governing Section 125 CrPC,

namely that the question is not whether the wife can

somehow survive, but whether she is able to maintain

herself with dignity in a manner consistent with the status

of the matrimonial home.

10. Learned counsel also urged that the Family Court

did not undertake any meaningful comparative assessment

of the financial capacity of Respondent No. 2 vis-à-vis the

3

Criminal Revision No. 108 of 2024 “Smt. Nusrat vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.”

Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:11373

Revisionist, despite material indicating the earning capacity

and financial dealings of Respondent No. 2 being available

on record.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2

supported the impugned order and submitted that the

Family Court, after appreciation of evidence, recorded a

finding of fact that the Revisionist was able to maintain

herself, which ought not to be interfered with in revision. It

was argued that