2025:UHC:5587 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2023 24th June, 2025 Shyam Singh ……….Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate by Ms. Medha Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sachin, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. r/w 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2023, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.532 of 2018, Smt. Ramita Rana Vs. Shyam Singh, whereby the said court has partly allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of ₹5,000/-, per month, as maintenance from the date of institution of claim by the 10th of each month. 2. Facts in a nutshell are that marriage of the revisionist and respondent no.2-wife was solemnized on 06.02.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals, wherein dowry was given by the parents of respondent no.2-wife as per their status. According to respondent no.2-wife, the revisionist and his family members after marriage began to harass her on the pretext of bringing a motor cycle and ₹2,00,000/- cash, even she was subjected to physical harassment by them. It was stated that on 09.09.2018 at about 09:00 hours, the revisionist-husband and mother- 1 2025:UHC:5587 in-law of respondent no.2-wife ousted her from their house and admonished her to come back with a motor cycle and ₹2,00,000/- else she would be killed. Since then respondent no.2-wife is residing in her parent’s house; she is a less educated woman having no means to manage herself while revisionist-husband runs a medical store from where he earns ₹30,000/- per month and the family of revisionist-husband is also having some agricultural land. On the said application, the revisionist- husband filed his objection and stated that respondent no.2-wife is not his legally wedded wife rather she is the sister-in-law of his younger brother. 3. Respondent no.2-wife and her family members had exerted undue pressure upon her to solemnize the marriage. The case was also instituted by the respondent no.2-wife against the revisionist-husband under Sections 376, 312 and 506 IPC which was found to be false and after investigation a prayer was made to reject the application. 4. The respondent no.2-wife in support of her case produced four witnesses out of which PW3 and PW4 were not cross-examined. The revisionist-husband in support of his case was produced as DW1 while his father was examined as DW2. The trial court at the end of the trial has awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- against the revisionist as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of this judgment. Hence, this Criminal Revision. 5. In order to prove the fact that respondent no.2- wife is having a valid marriage with the revisionist- husband, she has produced her own affidavit as PW1, in which, she has stated that she married revisionist- 2 2025:UHC:5587 husband on 06.02.2018 and some other people also participated in their marriage. PW2 has also supported the fact of solemnization of marriage of revisionist- husband and respondent no.2-wife on 06.02.2018 and to prove the fact of respondent no.2-wife being the legally wedded wife of revisionist-husband, in documentary evidence, photographs of marriage and some marriage documents, copies of which were also filed. 6. On the other hand, revisionist-husband has stated in his cross-examination that no marriage took place between him and the respondent-wife. The court below after analyzing the evidence led by the parties to this point and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court has reached to the conclusion that respondent-wife is legally wedded wife of the revisionist-husband in order to get the maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 7. So far as the question whether the respondent- wife is having valid reason to stay separately from the revisionist, it is stated by the respondent-wife that she was subjected to harassment at the hands of the revisionist-husband and his family members for the demand of ₹2,00,000/- with a motorcycle and on 09.09.2018, she was ousted from her in-laws house. 8. The Court in this regard has reached a finding that the revisionist-husband has stated in para no.11 of his objection that on 08.06.2018 an FIR was lodged at Police Station Khatima, wherein the entire case was found to be false and the final report was supplied in the court, wherein it is submitted that the respondent no.2 is wife of the revisionist. Hence this fact is clear that the respondent-wife is having valid reason to stay separately from the revisionist-husband. 3 2025:UHC:5587 9. So far as the fact whether any negligence adopted by the revisionist-husband in maintenance of respondent-wife, it is stated by her that she is less educated woman unable to maintain herself and thus the court below held that the revisionist-husband has adopted negligence in maintaining the respondent-wife. The next question whether the respondent-wife is not able to maintain herself, it is stated by the respondent- wife in her application that the revisionist-husband is having a medical store from where he gets ₹30,000/- and in total earns ₹60,000/- per month. Thus on the basis of this the court reached to this conclusion that the respondent-wife is unable to maintain herself while the revisionist-husband is having sufficient means and accordingly partly allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of ₹5,000/, per month, to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of claim-petition by the 10th of each month. 10. In this view of the matter, I did not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the court below and there is hardly any scope of interference. Hence the criminal revision fails and is dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned for compliance. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.06.2025 SK 4