UKHC010093302026 2026:UHC:7323 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/412/2026 Reshma --Revisionist Versus Kheem Singh --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Nitin Kamal, Advocate for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the judgment & order dated 18.04.2026 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Champawat in Misc. Criminal Case No.121 of 2024, whereby maintenance to the revisionist and her minor child has been awarded at the rate of ₹12,000/- per month, consolidated. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amount of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is wholly inadequate and has been fixed without properly appreciating the income and financial capacity of the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent is serving as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and is drawing salary in the Band Pay of ₹31,400/-, with his total gross monthly salary being approximately ₹88,588/-. Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist has specifically stated on affidavit that she is not gainfully employed UKHC010093302026 2026:UHC:7323 and has no independent source of income. It is also submitted that the revisionist was compelled to leave her matrimonial home along with her minor child, who is aged about three years, and is required to bear the expenses towards their day-to- day needs, including food, clothing, medical expenses and other necessities. Learned counsel submits that the minor child is now required to be admitted to school and, consequently, the educational and allied expenses would substantially increase. It is further submitted that the revisionist is residing in rented accommodation and has to incur rental expenditure apart from meeting the other household expenses. According to learned counsel, the respondent has no other substantial liability towards maintenance and, therefore, the amount of ₹12,000/- per month awarded by learned Family Court does not correspond with the financial capacity of the respondent or the reasonable needs of the revisionist and the minor child. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the actual monthly salary of the respondent is approximately ₹50,000/-. It is, however, fairly submitted that even if the gross salary of ₹88,588/- per month, as claimed by the revisionist, is taken into consideration, the respondent has opted for various post-retiral schemes and substantial deductions, nearly to the extent of 40% of his salary, are being made towards such schemes. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondent does not have the financial capacity to pay the enhanced amount as claimed by the revisionist. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The object of an UKHC010093302026 2026:UHC:7323 order of maintenance is not merely to ensure the bare survival of the wife and the minor child, but to enable them to live with reasonable dignity and in a manner commensurate with the status and standard of living of the husband, subject, of course, to his actual financial capacity. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the Court is required to take into consideration the income and earning capacity of the husband, the reasonable needs of the wife and minor child, their respective standard of living, the expenses necessarily required to be incurred, and the other liabilities, if any, of the husband. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepa Joshi Vs. Gaurav Joshi, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 597, has reiterated that the obligation of a husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing obligation, which must be discharged in a manner ensuring that the wife is able to live with dignity and in a standard of living reasonably commensurate with that enjoyed by her during the subsistence of the marriage. It has further been held that, while determining the husband’s actual earning capacity for the purpose of assessing maintenance, deductions towards repayments or liabilities which result in the creation or enhancement of assets cannot be permitted to substantially diminish his assessable income, as such repayments cannot take precedence over his statutory obligation to maintain his spouse. 7. In the present case, the material placed on record indicates that the revisionist has no independent source of income and is maintaining herself as well as the minor child. The respondent is admittedly serving in the Indian Army. UKHC010093302026 2026:UHC:7323 Even according to the respondent, his salary is approximately ₹50,000/- per month, whereas the revisionist has placed on record material indicating his gross monthly salary to be approximately ₹88,588/-. The mere fact that certain deductions are being made from the salary of the respondent towards post-retiral schemes cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground to determine maintenance solely on the basis of the amount remaining after such voluntary deductions. Such deductions, particularly those made towards savings or post-retiral benefits, cannot have the effect of defeating or substantially reducing the legitimate claim of the wife and minor child for maintenance. 8. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the revisionist has no independent income, is residing separately from the respondent and is required to maintain a minor child aged about three years. The educational expenses of the child are also likely to increase with her admission to school. In these circumstances, the consolidated amount of ₹12,000/- per month awarded by learned Family Court appears to be on the lower side and does not adequately reflect either the reasonable requirements of the revisionist and the minor child or the financial capacity and status of the respondent. 9. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the income of the respondent, the absence of any independent source of income of the revisionist, the age and needs of the minor child, the rental expenditure and the likely educational expenses, this Court is of the considered view that the consolidated maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month for UKHC010093302026 2026:UHC:7323 the revisionist and the minor child would meet the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Champawat in Misc. Criminal Case No.121 of 2024 is modified to the extent that the respondent shall pay consolidated maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month to the revisionist towards her maintenance and that of the minor child, in place of ₹12,000/- per month awarded by learned Family Court. The respondent shall continue to pay the maintenance regularly on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month. 11. The Criminal Revision is, accordingly, disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.08.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20 dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB 987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.08.17 15:39:19 +05'30'