HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 460 of 2022

21^st August, 2025

Sukhdev Singh ……….Revisionist

Versus

Mandeep Kaur and Others ………Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Yogesh Pant, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for respondents.

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

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)

The present criminal revision has been

preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2021 “Sukhdev Singh Vs. Mandeep Kaur and Others”, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed, affirming the judgment and order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 51 of 2018 “Mandeep Kaur and Others Vs. Sukhdev Singh”. By the said order, the case filed by the respondents under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the D.V. Act”) was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of

₹10,000/- per month to the respondents.

2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the present revision, are that the matter arises out of

matrimonial discord between the revisionist and respondent no.1, who are husband and wife respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.06.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals and two children, one son and one daughter, were born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that since the year 2017, the revisionist and his family members subjected respondent no.1 to cruelty and physical assault, due to which she started residing separately along with the children. Respondent no.1 filed an application before the trial court seeking protection orders and maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month. The learned trial court, vide judgment dated 23.03.2021, partly allowed the application by restraining the revisionist from committing any mental, emotional or economic violence against the respondents and directed him to pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month. The criminal appeal filed against the said order was dismissed, hence this revision. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that both the courts below erred in law in fixing the quantum of maintenance. It is submitted that the maintenance was awarded on the basis of presumption without appreciating the actual salary slips of the revisionist. The income assessed by the courts below is contrary to record, as his salary was never to the extent presumed. Thus, the maintenance fixed is excessive and unsustainable. He would further submit that respondent no.1 left the matrimonial home of her own volition despite the willingness of the revisionist to reside with her; that, no complaint of domestic violence was ever made prior to the filing of the present proceedings, thereby indicating that the allegations are concocted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revisionist is owner of four bighas of agricultural land and was employed as a Conductor in Uttarakhand Roadways, earning around ₹30,000/- per month. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 has to maintain two growing children aged 8 and 11 years, who require educational, medical and other expenses, and hence the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is justified.

5. To this, learned counsel for the revisionist, however, pointed out that the revisionist is suffering from low grade glioma, on account of which he is unable to continue his duties as Conductor in Uttarakhand Roadways. Presently, he is working at a grocery shop earning only about ₹7,000/- per month. It was contended that in these circumstances, he is financially incapable of paying ₹10,000/- per month as directed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the partie