2025:UHC:7791 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/698/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. B.S. Koranga and Ms. Mamta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh along with Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed by the applicant assailing the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned court below in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 5 of 2024, 12 of 2024, 27 of 2024 and 32 of 2024 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. 5. The preset matter arises out of matrimonial discord between the parties. The applicant is the husband, whereas respondent no.2 is his wife. 6. Brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 04.01.2015. From the wedlock, a girl child was born. The case of the applicant is that respondent no.2 started living separately from him in January, 2017. Respondent no.2 thereafter instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The trial court, vide ex parte order dated 12.10.2018, directed the applicant to pay ₹4,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and ₹1,500/- per month to the minor daughter. The applicant 2025:UHC:7791 preferred a revision, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nainital on 03.01.2019, subject to deposit of ₹10,000/- as cost to respondent no.2, with a direction to both parties to appear before the trial court. The applicant, however, could not comply with the condition immediately and deposited the cost belatedly. In the meantime, the trial court, vide order dated 18.02.2019, dismissed the enforcement application filed by respondent no.2. On revision preferred by respondent no.2, the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, vide order dated 30.10.2021, set aside the order dated 18.02.2019 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Subsequently, the trial court decided the matter afresh on 21.03.2022. The revision preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh on 07.09.2022. The applicant thereafter filed a C-482 petition before this Court, which remained pending. In the meantime, respondent no.2 initiated execution of the ex parte order dated 12.10.2018, whereupon the trial court issued recovery warrants on 04.04.2025, which is the subject matter of present challenge. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant retired from the Indian Army on 01.04.2018 and is solely dependent on his pension of about ₹17,000/- per month; that he also requires regular medical treatment. It is further submitted that the applicant has already paid substantial sums to respondent no.2, approximately ₹3,60,000/- between April, 2017 and July, 2020 under Army 2025:UHC:7791 directions, and additional amounts before the trial court; hence, issuance of recovery warrants was wholly unwarranted. It is contended that respondent no.2 is employed as a teacher, earning a regular income, and is not entirely dependent upon maintenance. It is further urged that arrears of about ₹40,000/- alone remain to be paid, which the applicant undertakes to clear. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 argued that respondent no.2 was compelled to live separately owing to harassment by the applicant; that, on her complaint, Army authorities directed deduction of ₹9,000/- per month from the applicant’s salary, which was directly credited to her account, therefore payments made cannot be said to be voluntary. It is submitted that the applicant deliberately defaulted in complying with court orders despite receiving retiral dues and pension. It is further submitted that his plea of illness is not supported by medical evidence and treatment papers show only alcohol-related ailments. It is claimed that a sum of ₹1,62,000/- is still outstanding apart from ongoing maintenance. 9. To this, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that arrears have largely been cleared and only about ₹40,000/- is outstanding, which he is willing to pay in installments, keeping in view the financial constraints of the applicant. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. It is a settled principle that a husband 2025:UHC:7791 has a statutory obligation to maintain his wife and minor children, who are unable to maintain themselves. In the present case, the order dated 12.10.2018 awarded maintenance of ₹5,500/- per month in favour of respondent no.2 and the minor child. The record reflects that the applicant is ex-army personnel, and as per statement of learned counsel for the applicant, presently he is receiving a pension of about ₹17,000/- per month and that certain arrears remain to be cleared. 12. The applicant himself has admitted liability of about ₹40,000/-. In the facts and circumstances, and considering the applicant’s financial position, this Court finds it appropriate to grant him reasonable time to clear the admitted arrears. 13. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to pay the admitted arrears of ₹40,000/- before the trial court in four equal monthly instalments within four months. The first installment of ₹10,000/- shall be paid by the applicant on or before 26.09.2025. It is clarified that respondent no.2 will be free to recover any remaining balance of the maintenance by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present C-528 application is disposed of. 15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.09.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:7791