2025:UHC:6825 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.156 of 2025 04th August, 2025 Keshav Gangwar ………..Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Chetna Latwal, Advocate, through video conferencing and Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Mukul Dangi, Legal Aid Lawyer, for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Jyoti Singh Vs. Keshav Gangwar, arising out of Family Case No. 66 of 2023, CNR No.UKUS120001582023, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent no.2 was married to the revisionist on 05.03.2015, in a temple, following Hindu rituals. The revisionist took advantage of her financial vulnerability and pressurized her into marriage by threatening suicide. Both parties were employed at the same insurance company in SIDCUL, Pantnagar. Post-marriage, revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.2, who were dissatisfied with the dowry given to them and began harassing her demanding ₹14 lakhs, due to which she started living separately with the revisionist in a rented accommodation. However, on 04.01.2018, revisionist 1 2025:UHC:6825 allegedly left for Chandigarh and abandoned respondent no.2 and despite several attempts to return to her matrimonial home, she was denied entry. She also alleged that revisionist remarried and later assaulted her again when she confronted him. A police complaint (FIR No. 103/2018) was filed regarding dowry-related domestic violence against the revisionist and his family members by respondent no.2. Seeing no way out respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and also meanwhile pressed for interim maintenance before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, who vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2025 directed revisionist to pay an amount of ₹4,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent no.2 from 03.03.2023 until the date of decision. The amount was to be paid within one month of the order and thereafter by the 10th of every month. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amount of ₹4,000/- awarded as interim maintenance is grossly on the higher side, considering that revisionist is earning approximately ₹12,000/- and has to take care of his family members also. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 asserted that the revisionist is earning approximately ₹70,000/- per month from multiple sources and can pay a meager amount of ₹4,000/- to respondent no.2. He also contended that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar rightly awarded only ₹4,000/- as interim maintenance and committed no error in doing so. 5. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, as well as the submissions advanced 2 2025:UHC:6825 by both parties, this Court finds no legal infirmity or perversity in the said order that would warrant interference under its revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the interim maintenance amount of ₹4,000/- per month, as directed by the Family Court, cannot be termed as excessive or arbitrary, especially in view of current cost of living. The order is fair, balanced, and rooted in both equity and justice. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.08.2025 SK 3