2025:UHC:6780 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 475 of 2025 01 August, 2025 Ritu Jaiswal --Revisionist Versus Gaurav Saxena --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sumit Bajaj, learned counsel for the revisionist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present criminal revision, revisionist has put to challenge the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Case No.91 of 2023, Gaurav Saxena vs. Ritu Jaiswal, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist (wife) filed a complaint against the respondent (husband) with the averment that their marriage was solemnized on 08.12.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals, during which the parents of the revisionist spent a substantial amount beyond their capacity. It is further alleged that the respondent and his family demanded Rs.20,00,000 and a motorcycle at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the respondent and his family severely harassed and tortured the revisionist for additional dowry. On 30.08.2018, when the revisionist was pregnant, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 2025:UHC:6780 2 09.10.2018, the revisionist gave birth to a male child, namely Divyant, with all expenses borne by her parental family. On 16.11.2018, at about 12:30 a.m., the respondent, along with his mother, came to the revisionist’s parental home and asked her to return with them. However, as the child was unwell at that time, she requested to go the next morning. The respondent then started abusing and assaulting the revisionist, and both he and his mother returned to Kanpur, stating that she would no longer be permitted to enter the matrimonial home. Since then, the revisionist has been compelled to live in her parental home along with her minor son. 3. Thereafter, the revisionist filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, on 19.03.2020, claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child. Despite sufficient service of notice, the respondent did not appear, and accordingly, the trial court, vide its order dated 07.03.2022, proceeded ex-parte against him. Subsequently, on 23.08.2022, the case was decided in favour of the revisionist, directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month to the revisionist and Rs.5,000 per month to the minor son, totaling Rs.12,000 per month. Since the respondent failed to comply with the order dated 23.08.2022, the revisionist filed an execution application on 20.09.2022. Upon becoming aware of the execution proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, seeking recall of the order dated 23.08.2022. The learned Family Judge allowed the recall application and, vide order dated 02.05.2025, directed the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- towards as an advance which shall be adjusted after the 2025:UHC:6780 3 final order in the case. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has approached this Court. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law, as the trial court, while allowing the recall application of the respondent, awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000, whereas the total arrears of maintenance amount to more than Rs.7 lakhs. He further contends that the respondent is employed as a Manager in a private company and is earning a handsome salary. He also submits that the revisionist has been maintaining herself and her child by borrowing money from her relatives and is facing severe financial hardships. She has to take care of her child and manage his education as well. Thus, she is entitled to receive the entire amount of arrears of maintenance as per the order dated 23.08.2022. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, perused the impugned order dated 02.05.2025, and upon examination of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the order passed by the Family Court. The respondent had moved the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the ex-parte order, which the Family Court was legally competent to entertain and decide. The impugned order reflects that the Family Court allowed the recall application subject to the condition that the respondent shall deposit Rs.50,000 towards advance, which was intended as an interim measure to secure partial compliance and demonstrate bona-fides before the matter is heard afresh on merits. Such discretion, exercised judiciously by the Family Court, cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 2025:UHC:6780 4 Further, it remains open to the revisionist to press her claim for the remaining arrears during the fresh adjudication post-recall. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Judge. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed in-limine. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.08.2025 AK