Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8551 (UTT)

Vineet Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-02-11

Ashish Naithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ashish Naithani, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the Revisionist, Vineet Sharma, assailing the judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.285 of 2019, titled Monika Dhiman and Another v. Vineet Sharma. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court allowed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the Revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 2 (wife) and Respondent No. 3 (minor child). The Revisionist challenges the legality, correctness, and propriety of the said order on grounds relating to maintainability, appreciation of evidence, earning capacity of the parties, and applicability of Section 125(4) CrPC. 3. The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 16.11.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the said wedlock, a male child, Respondent No. 3, was born. 4. After marriage, matrimonial discord arose between the parties. The record reflects that in the year 2018, Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In response, the Revisionist instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 5. Subsequently, efforts at reconciliation were made and the parties arrived at a settlement. In pursuance thereof, the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were disposed of, and the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was withdrawn, with Respondent No. 2 agreeing to resume cohabitation at the matrimonial home. 6. However, on 21.04.2019, Respondent No. 2 once again left the matrimonial home along with the minor child. On the same date, an FIR bearing No. 507 of 2019 was lodged at Police Station Patel Nagar, Dehradun against the Revisionist and his family members. Since then, the parties have been living separately. 7. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Dehradun, seeking maintenance for herself and for the minor child, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 285 of 2019. 8. The said application was contested by the Revisionist. 7. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Dehradun, seeking maintenance for herself and for the minor child, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 285 of 2019. 8. The said application was contested by the Revisionist. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, by judgment and order dated 12.07.2024, allowed the application and directed the Revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month towards Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Revisionist has approached this Court by way of the present criminal revision. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and perversity inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record relating to the earning capacity of the parties. It was contended that the Revisionist is earning a meagre income and that the direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month virtually amounts to awarding the entirety of his income as maintenance, leaving him without any means of subsistence. 12. It was further urged that Respondent No. 2 is a well-educated and physically able person, holding a professional qualification and having prior work experience, and therefore is capable of maintaining herself. Learned counsel submitted that the Family Court ignored material evidence demonstrating her capacity to earn and erred in fastening the entire financial liability upon the Revisionist without recording any cogent finding as to his actual income. 13. Learned counsel for the Revisionist also contended that Respondent No. 2 had voluntarily withdrawn from the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and continues to live separately despite repeated efforts at reconciliation. On this premise, it was submitted that the bar contained under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 squarely applies, disentitling Respondent No. 2 from claiming maintenance. Accordingly, interference in revision was sought. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence. Accordingly, interference in revision was sought. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence. It was contended that Respondent No. 2 has no independent source of income and is residing separately on account of matrimonial cruelty and neglect, which stands duly reflected from the record. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that the primary consideration under Section 125 CrPC is prevention of vagrancy and destitution, particularly of a wife and minor child. It was argued that the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and child is statutory in nature and cannot be avoided on speculative assertions regarding her earning capacity, especially when no concrete evidence of actual income has been produced. 16. It was lastly submitted that Respondent No. 3, being a minor child, is wholly dependent upon the Revisionist, and the quantum of maintenance awarded is neither excessive nor unreasonable considering the rising cost of living. Learned counsel contended that no jurisdictional error or perversity is made out warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction, and the revision deserves dismissal. 17. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record, including the impugned judgment. The scope of interference in revision against an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. However, where the order discloses non-consideration of relevant material or results in manifest inequity, revisional interference is warranted. 18. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and intended to prevent destitution. The determination of maintenance must strike a balance between the needs of the claimant and the paying capacity of the person against whom the order is made. The jurisdiction is remedial and not punitive. 19. Insofar as Respondent No. 3 is concerned, being a minor child, the obligation of the Revisionist to provide maintenance is absolute, subject to his means. The entitlement of the minor child to maintenance does not depend upon the matrimonial disputes between the parties. 20. With respect to Respondent No. 2, the record indicates that she is educated and has had prior work experience. While mere educational qualification does not disentitle a wife from maintenance, the capacity to earn is a relevant consideration while determining the quantum. 20. With respect to Respondent No. 2, the record indicates that she is educated and has had prior work experience. While mere educational qualification does not disentitle a wife from maintenance, the capacity to earn is a relevant consideration while determining the quantum. The impugned order does not reflect adequate consideration of this aspect. 21. The material on record further indicates that the income of the Revisionist is modest. The impugned order does not contain a clear assessment of his actual earning capacity, nor does it demonstrate a nexus between such capacity and the quantum of maintenance awarded. An order directing payment of maintenance must not be such as to render the payer incapable of sustaining himself. 22. The plea raised by the Revisionist regarding Respondent No. 2 living separately without sufficient cause, attracting the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., also required consideration. The impugned order does not reflect a clear finding on this issue, despite the same having been specifically raised. 23. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that while the entitlement of Respondent No.3 to maintenance warrants no interference, the impugned order suffers from inadequate consideration of relevant factors insofar as Respondent No. 2 and the quantum of maintenance are concerned. ORDER 24. The Criminal Revision is partly allowed. 25. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 285 of 2019 is affirmed insofar as it grants maintenance to Respondent No. 3, the minor child. 26. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it grants maintenance to Respondent No. 2. The matter is remitted to the learned Family Court, Dehradun for fresh determination of entitlement and quantum of maintenance, if any, payable to Respondent No. 2, in accordance with law. 27. The maintenance payable to Respondent No. 3 shall continue as directed.