Judgement Reserved on:08.09.2025 Judgement Delivered on:20.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 213 OF 2024 Vishal Khanduri ......Revisionist Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another …..Respondents With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri ......Revisionist Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another …..Respondents Presence Mr. Piyush Garg, Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the Revisionist in CRLR No.213 of 2024.

Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel for the Revisionist in CRLR No. 406 of 2024 Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in CRLR No.406 of 2024 Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. Both Revisions arise from a common order dated 19 January 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 487 of 2021 (Smt. Parul Khanduri v. Vishal Khanduri), whereby the husband was directed to pay ₹ 30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife

2. The parties married on 21 February 2007 in Delhi and have been living separately since 2016. The wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging neglect and refusal to maintain her despite sufficient means; the husband denied the allegations, claiming unemployment since

2013 and dependence on parental support.

3. The husband, Vishal Khanduri, filed CRLR No. 213 of 2024 challenging the quantum and basis of the Family Court’s order. The wife, Smt. Parul Khanduri filed CRLR No. 406 of 2024 seeking enhancement and removal of remarks perceived as adverse to her.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Piyush Garg on behalf of Revisionist-Husband submitted that the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 suffers from manifest arbitrariness and rests on conjecture rather than evidence. It was urged that the learned Family Court presumed an earning capacity of approximately ₹70,000 per month without any tangible proof on record.

5. According to learned Counsel, the Revisionist has remained unemployed since 2013; his Income Tax Returns and bank statements filed before the court below demonstrate continuous losses in share trading. It is urged that these circumstances were wholly ignored in fixing the quantum of maintenance.

6. Learned Counsel on behalf of Revisionist-husband contended that the finding that the husband “must be earning something” merely because he is highly qualified, is speculative and unsupported by evidence. It was argued that under Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court is required to undertake a realistic and evidence-based assessment of income, and not resort to presumption or surmise. The Family Court failed to record any definite finding as to the current source of income or earning capacity of the husband,and thereby committed a material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction.

7. It was further contended that the learned Family Court ignored the material circumstance that the Revisionist’s earlier obligation to pay ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance had been upheld by this Hon’ble Court upon due consideration of his financial status. In the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, the enhancement to ₹30,000 per month is wholly unjustified.

8. Learned Counsel on behalf of Revisionist-husband further submitted that the wife has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable cause and that her conduct disentitles her to claim maintenance. The revisionist continues to bear expenses towards his aged parents and is in no financial position to meet the exaggerated demand. The impugned order, it was argued, is therefore liable to be set aside or suitably modified.

9. Learned Counsel Mr. Pankaj Semwal, appearing for the Revisionist–wife, submitted that the amount of ₹30,000 per month awarded by the Family Court is meagre and grossly inadequate considering the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during cohabitation and the medical expenses presently incurred by the wife. It was con