IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2022 11th December, 2025 Meenakshi and Another ...Revisionists Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another ……… Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Reeta Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionists. Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 (only to the extent of quantum of maintenance) passed by Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No. 36 of 2018, Meenakshi and Another Vs. Sudarshan Saxena (under Section 125 Cr.P.C.) whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of revisionists by directing the opposite party no. 2 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- only. By means of the present criminal revision, revisionists have made a prayer to enhance the 1 maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 2. Respondent No. 2 is serving as a Conductor on contract basis with the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and as per the record, his monthly wages were variable from Rs.6000 to Rs.9000 per month. The Court had presumed it to be Rs. 10,000/- per month and on that basis, maintenance of Rs. 5000/- was awarded to the revisionists. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the court below has wrongly considered the income of the respondent. Learned counsel for the revisionists would further submit that fixation of the income of the respondent of Rs.10,000/- by the Trial Court is merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the Court below has also failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically stated in the catena of judgments that at the time of fixation of the maintenance, the Court should have considered the concrete evidence available on record in regard to the 2 salary of the husband and the trial court erred in not appreciating the fact of the instant case. 5. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 have opposed the instant revision. 6. After hearing the leaned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed by Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No. 36 of 2018, Meenakshi and Another Vs. Sudarshan Saxena, therefore, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.12.2025 Ujjwal 3