2025:UHC:6693 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 219 of 2025 30 July, 2025 Rajesh Kumar --Revisionist Versus Sarita --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist-husband. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent- wife. 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 04.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, in Misc. Criminal Case No.370 of 2023 Smt. Sarita Vs. Shri Rajesh Kumar, whereby, the application 8ka filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.7,000/-per month as maintenance allowance, on 10th day of each month from the date of filing the application i.e. 06.12.2023 and the arrears were directed to be paid within a month. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the respondent filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the basis of totally false and fabricated facts. The respondent is living separately since 07.07.2023 without any valid and cogent reasons and she had deserted the revisionist and her two minor children without any valid and cogent reason, thus, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 1 2025:UHC:6693 3. He further submits that the respondent used to fight with the revisionist and his family members without any cause, due to which their reputation in the society had been tarnished, which amounted to the cruelty itself. He further contends that the revisionist used to do marketing job, wherefrom he used to earn only Rs.30,000/- per month as salary. The revisionist had the liability of his old aged and sick parents and also had the responsibility of his two minor children, who are now school going, whom the respondent deserted without any sufficient reason. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the respondent is already running a Boutique, which was opened by the revisionist for her and further, without considering the earnings and expenditure of the revisionist to maintain himself as well as his family, learned Trial Court overlooked these facts, thus, the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court is totally unreasonable and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in the eyes of law. 5. He also contends that being a matrimonial dispute, there are still certain chances of settlement between the parties to the matrimony regarding the permanent alimony. The impugned order is not balanced in the ratio of income, expenditure and already granted maintenance amount to the respondent, as such the impugned order is illegal, improper and hence, liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revisionist and his family members demanded dowry from her and tried to kill her, thus, she has left the house of her husband. The revisionist’s monthly income is Rupees One Lakh from all the sources and the respondent has no source of income. 2 2025:UHC:6693 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents available on record as well as the judgment and order impugned in the present criminal revision. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding the failure to consider the financial status of the respondent, is totally bereft of merit. The learned Trial Court delved upon the issue in great detail and passed the impugned judgment and order. The amount is quite considerate and therefore, it needs no interference. The reasoning given by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, while allowing the application of the respondent vide its order dated 04.03.2025, is quite convincing and needs no interference. Moreover, it is only interim maintenance and final adjudication of respective claims of the parties is yet to be made. 8. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 30.07.2025 PN 3