HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 242 of 2024

07 July, 2025 Madhu --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Nadeem Azad, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This is a revision preferred under Section

397/401 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Original suit No.496 of 2021, Smt. Madhu vs. Mohit Kumar whereby an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- has been granted to revisionist.

2. Facts in nutshell are that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by revisionist-wife herein before trial court on 15.11.2021, whereupon notices were issued to the respondent-husband, but even after sufficient service, he did not present in the court, due to which, by order dated 30.06.2022 orders for ex-parte proceedings were passed. The trial court by judgment dated 20.10.2022, by an ex-parte judgment, allowed the application moved by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of presentation of application i.e. 15.11.2021. Assailing the said order, respondent-husband moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which was allowed by trial court by its order dated 24.08.2023 and the ex-parte order dated 20.10.2022 was recalled. Thereafter, during the pendency of the case, another application seeking interim maintenance was filed by revisionist-wife. On the said application, respondent- husband filed his objection. The trial court by way of order dated 23.02.2024 has allowed the application and directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the revisionist-wife from the date of presentation of application. Assailing the said order, revisionist-wife has come before this Court seeking enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that trial court has awarded meager amount of maintenance; the trial court has ignored the financial needs of the revisionist-wife; the respondent-husband earning a handsome amount as he is a central government employee working in ITBP to which the trial court has erred while awarding a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- per month.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-husband supported the order passed by trial court and argued that since there are various financial liabilities upon respondent-husband, the trial court keeping in mind the same, has awarded the amount as he is a central government of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/-.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

6. It is admitted case that respondent-husband is posted as Havildar in ITBP from where he himself admittedly earns to be Rs.35,000/- after deductions. Although, some amount has been stated to be spent upon treatment of his mother and besides payment of housing loan, awarding a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The family court while awarding this much of maintenance should have kept in mind the daily needs of the revisionist-wife. Although, the revisionist-wife is stated to be earning some amount by running a grocery shop in her house, but even then, it is the duty of the respondent-husband to maintain his wife according to his ability.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the interest of justice would be met, if an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month is awarded as interim maintenance.

8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed in part. The judgment a