HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2024

18 August, 2025 Deepak Chadha

--Revisionist

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand & others

--Respondents

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

Presence:-

Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola

Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

1. By means of present criminal revision, revisionist has put to challenge the order dated 28.11.2023, passed by Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, District Dehraun in Criminal Case No.161 of 2023, Smt. Swati Chadha & other vs. Deepak Chadha, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist (husband) was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent no.2 (wife), Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent no.3 (son) and Rs.10,000/- per month to

respondent no.4 (son) as interim maintenance.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 (wife) has filed an application for interim maintenance, stating that she married the revisionist on 03.12.2011. She has alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment due to dowry demands. As her children are very young, she is unable to work and has no source of income. She is dependent on her

parents, who bear all the expenses for her and her children. The revisionist is employed in a private company and earns approximately Rs. 90,000/- per month. His mother receives a pension of Rs. 40,000/- from his late father’s government service, and the family resides in a house valued at around Rs. 80 lakhs. The revisionist has not provided any maintenance so far and has neglected her. On this basis, Respondent No.2 (wife) has prayed for interim maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month for herself and her minor children from the revisionist. The trial court, after hearing both the parties, allowed the said application and granted interim maintenance as stated in para 1 of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist (husband) has come up before this Court.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is bad in law, as it is contrary to the legal provisions and the facts available on record. He further submits that respondent no. 2 left her matrimonial home along with the two minor sons without any cogent reason and has been residing separately ever since. It is also contended that respondent no.2 is earning from her job, and the learned trial court failed to consider this aspect while granting interim maintenance to her. He further submits that she is getting Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance in other matrimonial case instituted by her.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is absolutely correct, having been passed after due consideration of the material facts available on record.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

6. The learned Trial Court has duly considered the pleadings, the financial status of the parties, and the welfare of the minor children while granting interim maintenance. The contention raised by the revisionist that respondent no.2 is earning from her service is unsupported by any cogent or credible evidence on record and the same shall be considered by the trial court at the stage of final adjudication of the case. Mere oral assertions without documentary proof cannot be the basis to deny interim maintenance, especially when the wife and minor children are admittedly residing separately and are dependent on her parental family.

7. Moreover, the welfare of minor children is of paramount consideration under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the amount awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the wife and two minor