UKHC010010662026 2026:UHC:5308 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/60/2026 Yogesh Rawat …….Revisionist Versus Mamta Rawat ……..Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. M. S. Bisht, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Pankaj Semwal proxy counsel for Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent. 3. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No. 240 of 2025 filed under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the respondent's application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance till the final adjudication of the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist would submit that the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent UKHC010010662026 2026:UHC:5308 was solemnized on 19.04.2024 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs; that, due to certain matrimonial differences, the parties started residing separately; that, thereafter, the respondent instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, seeking maintenance; that, upon service of notice, the revisionist entered appearance and filed his detailed objections contesting the claim; that, without properly appreciating the objections and the material brought on record by the revisionist, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order directing payment of interim maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month, therefore, the impugned order suffers from non- consideration of relevant facts and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would contend that the revisionist is serving as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and is presently posted in a high-risk border area, on account whereof his gross monthly salary is approximately ₹93,000/; that, upon his transfer from the said high-risk posting, his regular monthly salary would be approximately ₹70,000/- to ₹72,000/-; UKHC010010662026 2026:UHC:5308 that, substantial statutory and financial deductions are made from the salary of the revisionist, including approximately ₹10,000/- towards Provident Fund, ₹7,500/- towards Army Group Insurance, besides monthly deductions of about ₹45,000/- towards repayment of housing and marriage loans obtained by him; that, his net take-home salary is only about ₹17,000/- per month. 6. It is further submitted that the revisionist is also under an obligation to maintain his old aged mother and to bear the educational expenses of his younger brother, who is still pursuing his studies; that, these financial liabilities could not be adequately demonstrated before the learned Family Court by producing the relevant salary slips and deduction statements, resulting in the grant of excessive interim maintenance; that, the respondent is an educated lady and is operating a YouTube channel, from which she is allegedly earning an income, but she has deliberately suppressed the said fact before the Family Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the revisionist is a permanent employee of the UKHC010010662026 2026:UHC:5308 Indian Army and is receiving a regular monthly salary. It is contended that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and the material available on record, has exercised its discretion judiciously while awarding interim maintenance. It is further submitted that the deductions relied upon by the revisionist are either voluntary in nature or arise out of his personal financial commitments, which cannot absolve him of his statutory obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not disputed that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. It is also undisputed that the revisionist is serving in the Indian Army and is earning a regular monthly salary. The object of granting interim maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. is to provide immediate financial support to a spouse UKHC010010662026 2026:UHC:5308 who is unable to maintain herself during the pendency of the proceedings. 10. It is well settled that a wife is entitled to live with dignity and enjoy a standard of living reasonably commensurate with the status and financial capacity of her husband. Considering the admitted employment and earning capacity of the revisionist, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of ₹10,000/- per month awarded as interim maintenance cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary or disproportionate so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. 11. This Court does not find any patent illegality, material irregularity, jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.11.2025. The impugned order is a well-reasoned interlocutory order passed in exercise of the discretion vested in the Family Court and calls for no interference. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.07.2026 mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900b f09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6 6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0 04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.03 11:52:15 +05'30'