Uttarakhand High Court
Lalit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:3151
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 493 of 2023
Lalit Kumar .........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .........Respondents
Presence:-
Ms. Radha Arya proxy counsel for Mr. Ra Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Neera Garg, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Dated : 25.04.2025
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Present criminal revision is filed by the
revisionist against the judgment and order dated
25.03.2025 passed by learned Family Court Judge,
Dehradun, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 308
of 2019 of 2024, whereby the said court has partly
allowed the application filed by the respondent nos.2 to
4 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (the criminal procedure then
was) and directed the revisionist/husband to pay the
maintenance of `19,000/- per month as maintenance
to respondent no.2 to 4 i.e. wife and sons of revisionist.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist/husband
submit that the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Family Court, Dehradun is
unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same was
passed by the concerned without appreciating the facts
and evidence on record; that, the revisionist is working
as Senior Assistant in Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan and
2025:UHC:3151
drawing the salary of `49,266/- per month only and
out of this monthly salary he has to pay other expenses
including the installments of life insurance policies,
cooperative society rent of `26,806/-, therefore, interim
maintenance granted by the trial court is on a very
higher side.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 to 4 would vehemently oppose the
above submissions and would submit that in
paragraph no. 8 of the impugned order dated
25.03.2025, it has been observed by the learned Family
Court, Dehradun that notwithstanding more than
sufficient opportunity, the revisionist/husband did not
filed the statement of his assets and liabilities; that, in
absence of the same, the adverse influence has to be
drawn against the revisionist.
He would further submit that first duty of the
husband and a father is to maintain his family and to
meet the expenses of education, food and daily living of
his wife and children, however, the
revisionist/husband/father designedly has made the
situation regarding the deduction of installments of
LIC, Cooperative Society and other expenses.
4. Perused the record in view of the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Admittedly, the salary of the revisionist is
getting `49,266/- per month. It is not of the legal of it
is moral duty of the husband/father to meet the daily
expenses living education food expenses of his legally
wedded wife and children and the deduction for the
installements of L.I.C. and Cooperative Society cannot
2025:UHC:3151
be a ground for giving the lesser maintenance of some
whey that deserve being his children and wife.
6. It is trite that the scope of jurisdiction of
revision is not as vast as that of appeal. In my view,
while considering the revision application, the
revisional court has a limited scope. In the revisional
jurisdiction, the Court has to see whether there is any
illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order
assailed before the Court, or any irregularity in the
proceedings adopted by the court below.
7. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the
court below shows that the court has dealt with all the
aspects of the matter and has thereafter passed the
impugned judgment.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not
point out any other irregularity in the proceedings of
the lower court or any impropriety, illegality and
incorrectness in the impugned orders.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
is of the view that there is no reason to make any
interference in the impugned judgment and order. The
revision deserves to be dismissed at the admission
stage.
10. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed
in limine.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial
court for information.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
25.04.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:3151
