HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.46 of 2023 Anil Upreti ………Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA for the State. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.334 of 2016, whereby, the application moved on behalf of respondent no.3 herein (Master Dhairya Upreti) was allowed against the revisionist by directing him to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month till the respondent no.3 attains the age of majority. 2. The facts of the case are that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 07.12.2010 as per hindu rites. At the time of marriage, the revisionist was working as Solution Manager ICICI Bank and after the marriage, he shifted in a rented accommodation in Dwarika, Delhi. In the month of April, 2010, the brother of respondent no.2 passed away, on which, she came to her parent’s house and since the month of November, 2012, the revisionist stopped giving any money to her and when she asked for the same, he would use abusive language with her. On 22.09.2015, the respondent no.2 gave birth to a son Dhairya Upreti. On 13.12.2015, the revisionist left 1 respondent no.2 and her son at her parent’s house and since then, neither he paid any heed towards her money nor did he pay any amount for her maintenance. It was stated that the revisionist earns Rs.2 lakh per month as salary from HDFC Bank and accordingly, the prayer to provide a sum of Rs.1 lakh for maintenance, medical and educational expenses was made. The revisionist filed his objection to the application, in which, he stated that respondent no. 2 herself is employed and the income tax payer and he is competent to maintain herself as well as her child. She has no responsibility upon her except herself and her son. Raising several other allegations, the revisionist prayed the dismissal of application. Before the trial court, the respondent no.2 was examined as PW1, in which, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 234 has submitted her affidavit besides other evidence. The trial court, heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The learned counsel for the respondent/applicants did not press for any amount of maintenance for applicant-mother as she herself was a working lady during argument. However, insofar as respondent no.3-minor son is concerned, the trial court awarded the maintenance @ Rs. 12,000/- per month by way of impugned order. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 3. It is an admitted matter. The revisionist and respondent no. 2 are married to each other and out of their conjugal relations, a child was born on 22.09.2015. Due to the matrimonial discord between the parties, the proceedings 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. emanated before the trial court. Even the proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was also instituted by the respondent-wife. Since, the respondent-wife is a working lady in a good company and earns handsome amount, the trial court did not award any amount towards her maintenance and she herself did not press for the same. However, insofar as the fact of respondent no.3/child is concerned, it is the legal responsibility of the revisionist to maintain his child according to his status. The revisionist was shown to be working in HDFC Bank on a higher post. He himself has stated to have worked in the said bank till 2015. After which he stated that he was unemployed. The trial court disbelieved his statement that he was unemployed after the year 2015. From the said employment, he was getting a package of Rs. 22 lakh per month. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/- for the maintenance of child i.e. respondent no.3 herein till he attains the age of majority from the date of order. In the opinion of this Court, there is hardly any ground to interfere with the aforesaid order. 5. A feeble attempt was made on behalf of the revisionist that in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), parties were required to file their separate affidavit regarding their proof of income. This argument is liable to be discarded at the threshold itself for the simple reason that the trial court at 3 the very beginning of the judgment, in para no. 4 has referred the affidavit of respondent no.2. Insofar as the proof regarding income of the revisionist is concerned, he himself admitted that he was working in HDFC Bank from where he was earning Rs.22 lakh per year. After that he showed himself to be unemployed. This argument cannot be believed that the revisionist was sitting idle at his house without any work. 6. In the present scenario, even a layman cannot be said to be unemployed. Moreover, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist to an order passed by this Court on 09.05.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2022, in which, the trial court was directed to decide the matter in the light of the judgment of Rajnesh (supra). 7. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that this order was passed by the Coordinate Bench which was preferred against an order passed by the trial court on interim maintenance application. Now, the final judgment has been passed and maintenance has been awarded. Moreover, a meager amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded against the revisionist, that too for his own son, cannot be said to be exorbitant at any cost. 8. In such view of the matter, the Court finds hardly any ground to interfere, the revision petition fails and the same is, accordingly dismissed. LCR be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed ahead. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.07.2025 Ravi 4