2025:UHC:6233 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 308 of 2024 17 July, 2025 Ramandeep Singh Virk --Revisionist Versus Satinder Kaur --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 14.03.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court (Second), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Criminal Case No.424 of 2018 Smt. Satinder Kaur and another Vs. Ramandeep Singh Virk, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.20,000/-per month as maintenance allowance, medical treatment, cloths, etc. on 10th day of each month from the date of passing that order. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the revisionist and the respondent were got married on 01.05.1996 as per Hindu (Sikh) Rites and Rituals and out of the said wedlock, one daughter-Km. Ekjyot Kaur and one son-Arman Singh Virk was born. Since 2014, when the revisionist left his wife and children, he did not pay any maintenance allowance for them. Thereafter, the respondent preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 23.08.2018, registered as Misc. Criminal 1 2025:UHC:6233 Case No.424 of 2018 Smt. Satinder Kaur and another Vs. Ramandeep Singh Virk, before the learned Judge, Family Court (Second), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was partly allowed by directing the revisionist to pay Rs.20,000/-per month as maintenance allowance, medical treatment, cloths, etc. on 10th day of each month from the date of passing that order i.e.14.03.2024. Revisionist had also filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur, which was dismissed vide its judgment and order dated 17.04.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the respondent owns about 11.5 acres of land which is in her name, which was provided in the affidavit given by her in the proceedings of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent earns an income of about Rupees One Lakh from the land she owns, thus, she is self-sufficient and able to maintain herself. She willfully deserted the revisionist in 2014 and is living separately with her parents. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that both children are major and his elder daughter resides in Canada, who was sent by the respondent to Canada and all the expenses were taken care of by herself. He further contends that revisionist is a farmer by occupation and earns a meager income and has to take care of his old aged and sick parents, who are under regular medical treatment and the revisionist is bearing their expenses in the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month. The revisionist has also to take care of his household expenses. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is only based on conjecture and surmises and is bad in the eyes of law. 2 2025:UHC:6233 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revisionist earns Rupees Eight Lakh annually from the various sources and the respondent’s son is mentally retarded, thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly passed the impugned judgment and order. The instant revision is not maintainable, as there is no ground to challenge the impugned order dated 14.03.2024, thus, there is no requirement of interference under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. 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 revisionist, 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 Judge, Family Court-II, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar while allowing the application of the revisionist partly vide its order dated 14.03.2024, is quite convincing and needs no interference. 7. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 9. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the learned Trial Court for consignment. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.07.2025 PN 3 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe3 8331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959A C, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.07.21 16:14:48 +05'30'