HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.453 of 2024 Nirmal Kumar --Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vikas S. Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist. Ms. Sweta Badhola, learned B.H. for the State. None for the respondent-wife despite service through her father. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This revision is preferred against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Crl. Case No.295 of 2023, Sheetal Arya v. Nirmal Kumar whereby the interim maintenance application moved by respondents has been allowed and revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.9,500/- and Rs.7,500/- total Rs.17,000/- per month to respondent nos.2 and her son as interim maintenance from the date of filing of application. 2. Revisionist was married to respondent no.2 as per Hindu rituals on 24.05.2021. She was left at her parents’ house on 18.11.2022 and since then he has not paid any heed towards her. She is less educated lady and has no source of income. The revisionist works in a bank and earns Rs.60,000/- per month. Hence the maintenance @Rs.30,000/- was sought. 3. Against the said application, the revisionist filed his objection in which he stated that even after making plenty of efforts, the respondent no.2 did not come back with him. He also filed a case u/s 9 of the 1 Hindu Marriage Act. He has responsibility of his old parents and has also taken some bank loans. Hence he prayed for dismissal of application. 4. After hearing the parties, the said application was partly allowed by the impugned judgment and order by granting Rs.17,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and her son as interim maintenance from the date of application. Therefore, the revisionist is before this Court by filing the present revision. 5. Admittedly, the revisionist is a bank employee working in Bank of Baroda. He himself has annexed pay slip of the year 2022 in which his total earnings has been shown as Rs.37,336/-; going by now, it can safely be inferred his monthly income as Rs.50,000/- per month. Although certain deductions have been shown to the tune of Rs.15,388/- but the same are the expenses towards repayment of bank loans which he has taken for his own use viz. vehicle loan etc. In this scenario, granting interim maintenance @Rs.17,000/- per month from the date of said application does not appear to be exorbitant particularly taking into account the fact that respondent no.2 is also maintaining a minor child whose up-bringing expenses are also to be borne by her. 6. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The interim maintenance awarded by the Court is perfectly justified as per the earning capacity of the revisionist. Moreover, the final adjudication of the claim of the parties is yet to be made through finally deciding of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, there is no force in this revision and the same is dismissed. Trial Court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial expeditiously. 2 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 14.08.2025 Rdang 3