IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 846 of 2024 Nishu Parche. ………………… Revisionist.

Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another. ……………Respondents.

Present:

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma and Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, through V.C. with Ms. Stuti Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order passed by the Principal Judge 1st Family Court, Dehradun, dated 08.10.2024 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 76 of 2022 ‘Nishu Parche vs. Satish Kumar Chandeliya’, whereby, a maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded to the revisionist. The instant revision has been preferred for enhancement of the maintenance as awarded by the Family Court.

2. On the previous date both the parties were directed to appear before the counsellor so that the efforts may be made for their amicable settlement and in compliance thereof they appeared before the counselor, who submitted its detailed report on 18.02.2026 and this court perused the same.

3. Brief facts of the case are that both the parties married on 14.06.2020, however, there is no issue from their marriage. The revisionist’s real sister married with the elder brother of the respondent and thereafter both of them fell in love, agreed to continue their relationship and then married. As per the counsellor’s report conflicts and differences were in existence from both the sides, which affect the relationship in terms of love-care-affection and attachment. Consequently, both of them living separately from 2021-2022, thereafter the revisionist filed cases against the respondent and his family members including the application for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the Family Court directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as a maintenance to the revisionist, which he is paying regularly. In the mid of 2023 the respondent filed a divorce petition at Dehradun, which is still pending. As per the counselor’s report the revisionist is still willing to live with the husband but since she is a Law Graduate she used her potential between relationship instead to approach in a positive way to dilute misunderstanding between them. Due to different legal actions initiated by the revisionist the respondent is feeling as heart filled with grief and sorrow and consequently the husband is not agreed to live with the wife.

4. Today, both the parties joined the proceeding through V.C. and the revisionist though is ready to live with the husband but the husband strictly refused for reunion. Since the husband already filed a divorce petition at Dehradun, which is still pending, therefore, he may pursue that proceeding but simultaneously the respondent-husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife-revisionist.

5. It is argued by Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the revisionist, that as on date the monthly salary of the respondent no. 2 is Rs. 57,000/-. In reference to this, the revisionist, who joined the proceeding through V.C., submits that he has collected the information under the RTI Act with regard to the monthly salary of the respondent, which shows that he is getting Rs. 57,000/- monthly salary. At the time when the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded by the Family Court the respondent no. 2 shown his monthly salary as Rs. 55,000/-.

6. It is argued by Mr. Bhatia that there is no liability upon the respondent since the mother and brother of the respondent no. 2 are in Government job and received handsome salary. He submits that the Family Court while granting maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- had not taken into consideration that the respondent no. 2 is also in a Government job and receiving handsome salary and in a very cursory and routine manner awarded the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- only. He submits that the maintena