2025:UHC:6138 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2025 15th July, 2025 Praveen Rao --Revisionist Versus Javed --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for revisionist- wife. Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for respondent- husband. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.69 of 2021 Smt. Praveen Vs. Javed, whereby, the application dated 05.04.2021 filed by the revisionist under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the revisionist-wife was living separately from the respondent-husband since 20.11.2004; she had filed an application for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2011 and the respondent-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to revisionist-wife as maintenance allowance. Thereafter, revisionist had filed a Criminal Case No.69 of 2021 Smt. 1 2025:UHC:6138 Praveen Vs. Javed, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, stating therein that the revisionist had no source of income and inflation has increased from 2011 to 2021 and further the respondent was working as Mechanic in Roadways, so his income was increased and the revisionist was not able to maintain herself with the existing amount of maintenance allowance. Learned Additional Principal Judge had rejected the said application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. vide its judgment and order dated 22.02.2025 stating that the respondent was unemployed and his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-, his age was also 58 years and there was no change in the financial circumstance of the respondent, thus, it was concluded that the amount of Rs.2,000/- was sufficient for revisionist in proportion to the income of the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has no source of income and she is getting old; respondent is a trained motor mechanic and runs a motor repair shop and earns income of about Rs.2,000/- per day. He further submits that the learned Trial Court had erred in considering the version of the respondent and had held that the revisionist was not entitled to any enhanced maintenance from the respondent. Learned Additional Principal Judge had declined to enhance the maintenance allowance to the revisionist on the basis of surmises and conjectures and had not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the amount of the maintenance allowance granted to the revisionist deserves to be enhanced. 2 2025:UHC:6138 4. Learned counsel for respondent vehemently argued that the revisionist is an old aged person and he is not capable to do any work, thus he could not pay the maintenance allowance to the revisionist to the tune of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Learned Additional Principal Judge had rightly rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application was filed by the revisionist under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount, since, the inflation has increased from 2011 to 2021, therefore, the maintenance amount can be enhanced after the lapse of a period of 14 years on the application moved by the revisionist. Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any material evidence to substantiate that the respondent is not capable to do any work, therefore, the maintenance amount should not be enhanced. This argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is bereft of merit. Since, the original order was passed in 2011, by which a meager amount of Rs.2,000/-p.m. was granted to the revisionist, therefore, there is no illegality in enhancing the amount of maintenance in favour of revisionist-wife from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent admittedly, who is a trained Mechanic, was earlier employed in Roadways and was dismissed from service. According to revisionist-wife, he is working as a Motor Mechanic and is earning about Rs.2,000/- per day, though denied by the respondent-husband, can be believed. Thus, he can afford to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to revisionist. 3 2025:UHC:6138 6. The upshot of the above discussions is that the present revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.69 of 2021 Smt. Praveen Vs. Javed, is hereby set aside. Respondent-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to revisionist-wife, as maintenance allowance every month on or before 10th day of each English calendar month from the date of filing the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. i.e.05.04.2021 and shall also pay the arrears of the maintenance allowance within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.07.2025 PN 4 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383 31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.07.18 15:02:58 +05'30'