UKHC010075772025 2026:UHC:6759 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/313/2025 Meenakshi Joshi --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mrs. Devika Tiwari, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Shobhit Joshi and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondent no.2. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist seeking enhancement of the maintenance awarded in her favour vide judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in Case No.77 of 2021, instituted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby the application filed by the revisionist was allowed and respondent no.2 was directed to pay a sum of ₹9,000/- per month towards her maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that respondent no.2 is serving as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of the State and, as per the salary slip for the month of July, 2025, his gross monthly salary is ₹54,315/-, whereas his net monthly salary, after statutory deductions, is ₹48,615/-. It is further submitted that the mother of respondent no.2 is a pensioner and is receiving pension exceeding ₹15,000/- per UKHC010075772025 2026:UHC:6759 month and, therefore, she is not financially dependent upon respondent no.2. It is also submitted that the minor daughter of respondent no.2 is residing with him and, from the documents placed on record relating to her school fees, the annual educational expenditure would approximately be between ₹50,000/- and ₹60,000/-. Learned counsel submits that learned Family Court has already taken into consideration the educational, transportation and other incidental expenses of the daughter and has appropriately assessed the same at about ₹10,000/- per month while determining the financial liability of respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the revisionist is suffering from a slipped disc and is required to undergo regular physiotherapy, for which she incurs an expenditure of approximately ₹3,000/- to ₹4,000/- per session, besides other medical expenses. It is contended that even after accounting for the expenditure incurred by respondent no.2 towards the education and maintenance of his daughter, he still retains a substantial disposable monthly income and is, therefore, financially capable of paying enhanced maintenance to the revisionist. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that apart from the school fees and transportation expenses of his daughter, respondent no.2 is also incurring approximately ₹5,000/- per month towards her private tuition. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 is repaying loan instalments and insurance premiums, owing to which he is left with insufficient income for his own sustenance. It is, therefore, argued that no case for enhancement of maintenance is made out. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that all the aforesaid pleas relating to educational expenses, loan liabilities and insurance payments had already been raised before the learned Family Court and were duly considered while passing UKHC010075772025 2026:UHC:6759 the impugned order. It is submitted that the respondent cannot seek to reagitate the very same issues in the present proceedings without placing any fresh material on record. 6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that respondent no.2 is in regular government service and is drawing a net monthly salary of approximately ₹48,615/-. Learned Family Court has already taken into account the expenses incurred by respondent no.2 towards the maintenance and education of his daughter while determining his financial capacity. At the same time, the medical condition of the revisionist, who is stated to be suffering from a slipped disc and is incurring recurring expenditure on physiotherapy and treatment, also deserves due consideration. The object of granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the wife is able to maintain herself with dignity and is not reduced to a state of destitution. The amount awarded should be realistic, fair and commensurate with the financial capacity of the husband as well as the reasonable needs of the wife. 7. Having regard to the income of respondent no.2, the liabilities already taken into consideration by the learned Family Court, the medical expenses being incurred by the revisionist and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance awarded to the revisionist requires enhancement. 8. Accordingly, the maintenance payable to the revisionist is enhanced from ₹9,000/- per month to ₹14,000/- per month. The enhanced amount shall be payable with effect from the month of August, 2026 and shall be paid by respondent no.2 on or before the 10th day of each succeeding calendar month. UKHC010075772025 2026:UHC:6759 9. The revisionist, who is present in person before the Court, has submitted that respondent no.2 has not been making payment of maintenance regularly and that on several occasions she has been constrained to initiate execution proceedings for enforcement of the maintenance order. Such conduct, if true, defeats the very object of the provisions relating to maintenance. 10. In view thereof, it is directed that in the event respondent no.2 commits default in payment of the monthly maintenance within the stipulated time for two consecutive months, the revisionist shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate execution proceedings in accordance with law. It shall also be open to her to approach the competent authority/ employer of respondent no.2 with a certified copy of this order and seek appropriate directions, in accordance with law, for deduction of the maintenance amount from the salary of respondent no.2 and its remittance directly to the revisionist, subject to any order that may be passed by the competent authority or the executing court. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the Criminal Revision stands disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 03.08.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654 45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C 5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.08.03 16:24:52 +05'30'