2026:UHC:2280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 846 of 2024 Nishu Parche. ………………… Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another. ……………Respondents. Present: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma and Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, through V.C. with Ms. Stuti Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order passed by the Principal Judge 1st Family Court, Dehradun, dated 08.10.2024 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 76 of 2022 ‘Nishu Parche vs. Satish Kumar Chandeliya’, whereby, a maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded to the revisionist. The instant revision has been preferred for enhancement of the maintenance as awarded by the Family Court. 2. On the previous date both the parties were directed to appear before the counsellor so that the efforts may be made for their amicable settlement and in compliance thereof they appeared before the counselor, who submitted its detailed report on 18.02.2026 and this court perused the same. 3. Brief facts of the case are that both the parties married on 14.06.2020, however, there is no issue from their marriage. The revisionist’s real sister married with the elder brother of the respondent and thereafter both of them fell in love, agreed to continue their relationship and then married. As per the 1 2026:UHC:2280 counsellor’s report conflicts and differences were in existence from both the sides, which affect the relationship in terms of love-care-affection and attachment. Consequently, both of them living separately from 2021-2022, thereafter the revisionist filed cases against the respondent and his family members including the application for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the Family Court directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as a maintenance to the revisionist, which he is paying regularly. In the mid of 2023 the respondent filed a divorce petition at Dehradun, which is still pending. As per the counselor’s report the revisionist is still willing to live with the husband but since she is a Law Graduate she used her potential between relationship instead to approach in a positive way to dilute misunderstanding between them. Due to different legal actions initiated by the revisionist the respondent is feeling as heart filled with grief and sorrow and consequently the husband is not agreed to live with the wife. 4. Today, both the parties joined the proceeding through V.C. and the revisionist though is ready to live with the husband but the husband strictly refused for reunion. Since the husband already filed a divorce petition at Dehradun, which is still pending, therefore, he may pursue that proceeding but simultaneously the respondent-husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife-revisionist. 5. It is argued by Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the revisionist, that as on date the monthly salary of the respondent no. 2 is Rs. 57,000/-. In reference to this, the revisionist, who joined the proceeding through V.C., submits that he has collected the information under the RTI Act with regard to the monthly salary of the respondent, which shows that he is getting Rs. 57,000/- monthly salary. At the time when the 2 2026:UHC:2280 maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded by the Family Court the respondent no. 2 shown his monthly salary as Rs. 55,000/-. 6. It is argued by Mr. Bhatia that there is no liability upon the respondent since the mother and brother of the respondent no. 2 are in Government job and received handsome salary. He submits that the Family Court while granting maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- had not taken into consideration that the respondent no. 2 is also in a Government job and receiving handsome salary and in a very cursory and routine manner awarded the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- only. He submits that the maintenance as awarded by the Family Court is in a lower side and is not feasible to mitigate day-to-day need of the revisionist. 7. In addition to this, Mr. Bhatia further argued that since the respondent no. 2 have no liability and he is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 57,000/- as awarded by the Family Court the amount towards maintenance should be increased. In addition to this, Mr. Bhatia submits that the revisionist has no earning. He submits that the revisionist took a gold loan of Rs. 22,600/- on 03.06.2022 and thereafter again she took a gold loan of Rs. 12,000/- on 13.08.2022 and then Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- was also taken as a gold loan to contest all these matrimonial matters and infact the revisionist has no monthly income. He further submits that the Family Court wrongly draw a conclusion of monthly salary of the revisionist Rs. 25,000/- per month, which is based upon the IFL Finance Security Papers, relating to gold loan. 8. On the other side, Mr. Ramji Srivastava submits that the Family Court rightly granted the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- since the monthly income of the revisionist is Rs. 25,000/-. 3 2026:UHC:2280 9. I peruse the order passed by the Family Court and so far as the monthly salary of the revisionist is concerned, the same is based upon the loan papers from which the monthly income cannot be drawn and, therefore, finding of the Family Court to this extent is completely perverse and is hereby setaside. 10. Admittedly, as per the order of the Family Court the Family Court draw a conclusion that the monthly salary of the respondent-husband is Rs. 55,000/- as evident from paragraph- 54 of the order impugned and since the respondent no. 2 have no liability as his brother and mother are the earning members, therefore, in such an eventuality the revisionist is entitled to get atleast 1/3rd of the salary of respondent-husband, the roughly figure of which comes to Rs. 18,000/- per month. 11. Mr. Ramji Srivastava after getting instructions from his client, who joined the proceeding through V.C., gives a consent that the amount of maintenance be increased from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- to be paid from the date of the application. 12. In such view of the matter, the instant revision is allowed and the maintenance as awarded by the Family Court is increased from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and to be paid from the date of the application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. after adjusting the amount already paid. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 01.04.2026 PR 4