UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/311/2021 Bhaskaranand Joshi …….Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another …….Respondents with CRLR/684/2022 Geeta Joshi …….Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another …….Respondents Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi and Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned counsel for the revisionist in CRLR No.311 of 2021 and Mr. Asif Ali (through Video Conferencing) and Ms. Nisha Dhami, learned counsel for revisionist in CRLR No.684 of 2022. 2. Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in CRLR No.684 of 2022. 4. Present criminal revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.345 of 2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the husband was directed to pay maintenance of ₹3,500/- per month to the respondent-wife. 5. The Criminal Revision No.311 of 2021 has been preferred by the husband seeking setting aside of the judgment and order dated 06.10.2021, whereas Criminal Revision No.684 of 2022 has been filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 Family Court vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the husband- revisionist would submit that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.03.2014 according to Hindu rites and customs; that, due to matrimonial discord, the wife left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house; that, thereafter, she instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance; that, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order, directed the husband to pay maintenance of ₹3,500/- per month to the wife. 7. He would further submit that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the evidence available on record; that, the wife voluntarily deserted the husband without any sufficient cause and, therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; that, the husband has always been ready and willing to keep the wife with him and resume matrimonial relations, but the wife herself refused to return to the matrimonial home; that, the husband is employed as a Receptionist/Supervisor in a private company and earns approximately ₹10,000/- per month; that, his employment is temporary and his income is uncertain and unstable; that, besides maintaining himself, he is also required to support his aged parents residing in the village; that, the Family Court, without properly appreciating his financial condition and liabilities, mechanically awarded maintenance. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations of cruelty and harassment levelled by the wife are false UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 and baseless and that she failed to establish any sufficient reason for residing separately; that, the Family Court committed manifest errors of law and fact by relying solely upon the assertions made by the wife and by determining maintenance on presumptions rather than on cogent evidence; that, the wife had lodged criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 504 I.P.C. against the husband, however, the husband was acquitted of all charges by the learned Trial Court and the appeal preferred by the wife against the acquittal was also dismissed, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the allegations of cruelty having not been substantiated, the wife is disentitled from claiming maintenance. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the wife supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Family Court, after due appreciation of the evidence, rightly granted maintenance to the wife, however, the amount of ₹3,500/- per month is grossly inadequate and insufficient for the wife's sustenance; that, the husband is employed as a Supervisor in a private company and is earning a reasonable income; that, he also possesses other sources of income and immovable properties; that, the wife is entitled to live with dignity and enjoy a standard of living commensurate with that of her husband; that, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the settled principle that a spouse should not be compelled to live in penury while the other spouse enjoys a comfortable life, therefore, the maintenance amount deserves enhancement from ₹3,500/- to ₹15,000/- per month. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 husband would submit that there is no documentary evidence on record either before the Family Court or before this Court to establish that the husband possesses any substantial property or additional source of income; that, the wife, in her deposition recorded in the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 504 I.P.C., admitted in her cross-examination that she had resided in the matrimonial home only for about one month and that she was unwilling to reside with the husband either at Bageshwar or at Bhimtal. She further stated that even if the husband came to reside at her parental home, she was not willing to live with him, though she also did not wish to obtain a divorce. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is well settled that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to provide a speedy remedy to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. A legally wedded wife who is unable to maintain herself is ordinarily entitled to maintenance from her husband, provided the statutory conditions contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 13. In the present case, the Family Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the respondent-wife is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and has no independent source of income sufficient for her maintenance. The Family Court further found that the husband has sufficient means to maintain the wife and awarded maintenance of ₹3,500/- per month. UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 14. This Court does not find any material on record to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Family Court suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Mere acquittal of the husband in criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 504 I.P.C. does not ipso facto disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the scope and object of the two proceedings are entirely distinct. Similarly, no cogent evidence has been produced by the wife to establish that the husband possesses such substantial income or assets as would justify enhancement of maintenance from ₹3,500/- to ₹15,000/- per month. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. Consequently, both Criminal Revision No.311 of 2021 and Criminal Revision No.684 of 2022, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.06.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef 900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911c a8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.19 16:54:31 +05'30'