2025:UHC:7136 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 295 of 2023 13th August, 2025 Sanjay Mishra ……….Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2023, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun in Misc. Criminal Case No.62 of 2018, Smt. Savita Mishra and another Vs. Sanjay Mishra, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. Facts in a nutshell are that marriage of revisionist-husband and respondent no.2-wife was solemnized on 01.07.2009, according to Hindu rites and rituals and after the marriage the revisionist-husband did not take respondent no.2-wife to his place of posting and when respondent no.2-wife tried to contact him, he blocked her number. Thereafter respondent no.2-wife with her father went to the place of posting of the revisionist- husband at Nagaland, where the revisionist-husband introduced himself as unmarried and misbehaved with respondent no.2-wife and her father. After intervention of local people revisionist-husband realized his mistake and promised that he will not repeat the said mistake, in future, but in the month of December, 2014, the revisionist- husband took respondent no.2-wife to her parental house 1 2025:UHC:7136 with a promise that he will come to take her with him. But after lapse of time the revisionist-husband did not visit her. Seeing no other option, respondent no.2-wife filed an application dated 17.05.2018 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance amounting to ₹35,000/-, per month, from the revisionist-husband. Learned Judge vide its judgment and order dated 06.03.2023, directed the revisionist-husband to pay an amount of ₹12,500/-, per month, each, to respondent no.2-wife and respondent no.3- minor son, from the date of application till February, 2023. Further to pay the said maintenance amount of ₹12,500/-, per month, each, (i.e., ₹25,000/-) till tenth day of every month to them. However the maintenance is paid to the respondent no.3-minor son till the he attains majority. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the revisionist-husband is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-husband submits that the order of maintenance is passed by learned Judge without taking into consideration the ratio of income of the revisionist-husband and has directed him to pay excessive amount as maintenance to the respondent no.2- wife and respondent no.3-minor son, which is illegal and improper as the revisionist-husband has not much to give from his income at present. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-wife denied all the submissions of the revisionist-husband and submits that the revisionist is the husband of respondent no.2 and the father of respondent no.3, and that no divorce has taken place between the revisionist-husband and respondent no. 2-wife; therefore, he is under a duty to look after his wife and son, which is the bounden duty of a man, as the karta, to provide for the needs of his family. 2 2025:UHC:7136 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 further submits that trial court reached to this conclusion that the gross monthly income of the husband is ₹1,19,781/- and net salary is ₹59,500/-, per month. Undisputedly, the minor son is still living with respondent no.2-wife. Thus there is no illegality in awarding maintenance of ₹25,000/-, per month. 6. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the revisionist-husband and respondent nos.2 and 3, this Court is inclined to agree with the argument advanced by counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 that the revisionist-husband and respondent no.2-wife are still not divorced, and that it is the duty of a man to be a provider for the needs of his wife and son. Taking into account the present rate of inflation, the maintenance awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, vide its judgment and order dated 06.03.2023, is not exorbitant and is justifiable. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment and order which may warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.08.2025 SK 3