2025:UHC:10115 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ASHI SH NAI THANI CRI MI NAL REVI SI ON NO. 4 8 5 of 2 0 2 5 Khadak Singh ..…Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another …Respondents Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Joshi and Mr. Danish Khan, Advocates. Counsel for the State : Mr. G.C. Joshi, A.G.A. Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. Sheetal Selwal No. 2 Advocate. Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i,J. The present Criminal Revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2025, passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Case No. 58 of 2024, “Dhanuli Devi vs. Khadak Singh”, whereby maintenance was awarded in favour of a woman described in the proceedings as “Dhanuli Devi”. 2. On the last date, i.e., 27.10.2025, the parties were directed to remain present in person for interaction. Today, the Revisionist–Khadak Singh and the woman claiming to be Respondent No. 2, namely Smt. Dhanuli Devi, are present before this Court. 3. This Court first interacted with the woman present, who disclosed her name as Dhanuli Devi W/o Khadak Singh. She stated that her mother’s name is Smt. Durga Devi and her father’s name is Shri Vilobh Singh. Upon being asked about her marital status, she stated that the Revisionist had two wives, one of whom passed away long ago, and that she is the second wife. She further stated that two 1 Criminal Revision No. 450 of 2025, “Amit Kumar vs.State of Uttarakhand and Another”. Ashish Naithani J. 2 2025:UHC:10114 children, a daughter and a son were born out of the wedlock, and both are now married. She added that the Revisionist performed the customary ritual of kanyadan at their daughter’s marriage. When asked about the specific dates of the death of the first wife or the date of her own marriage, she stated that she is illiterate and unable to recall exact dates. She requested that the interim maintenance be paid to her and stated that she seeks nothing beyond that. 4. On interacting with the Revisionist, he stated that his wife had passed away in the year 2010 and, in support thereof, he has already filed the death certificate. He further stated that the woman present before the Court is “Smt. Kamla Devi,” who had merely worked in his house as a maid, and that he has no marital relationship with her. He submitted that, for the purpose of securing pensionary benefits, she is falsely claiming to be his wife and is posing as Respondent No. 2. 5. From the statements of the parties, a factual situation emerges wherein two women appear to bear the same name, “Dhanuli Devi”: (i) one, who admittedly passed away on 05.08.2010, as reflected in the death certificate (mother’s name – Deepa Devi; father’s name – Bache Singh), and whose identity as the deceased wife is admitted by the Revisionist; and (ii) the other, who is present before this Court, claiming herself to be the wife of the Revisionist, and whose parentage she disclosed as mother – Durga Devi and father – Vilobh Singh. 2 Criminal Revision No. 485 of 2025, “Khadak Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others”. Ashish Naithani J. 3 2025:UHC:10114 6. The Aadhaar Card placed on record also mentions her name as “Dhanuli Devi”, showing the spouse’s name as Kharak Singh, with Date of Birth: 20.06.1958, and Aadhaar Card No. 9031 7642 6621. 7. In this background, the issue that arises is whether the woman appearing before this Court is the genuine beneficiary of the maintenance proceedings and whether she can legally claim herself to be the lawfully wedded wife of the Revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the factual aspects relating to identity, marital status, and the authenticity of the claim have not been examined by the learned Family Court with the degree of scrutiny required. These issues can be determined only upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which is within the domain of the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, and without entering into the merits of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Nainital, for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on all relevant aspects, including the identity and marital status of the woman claiming to be “Dhanuli Devi”. 10. In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision stands disposed of. 11. Let the record be sent back forthwith. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ASHI SH NAI THANI , J. Dated 14.11.2025 Shiksha/ 3 Criminal Revision No. 485 of 2025, “Khadak Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others”. Ashish Naithani J.