Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6839
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.414 of 2023
04th August, 2025
Heera Pal ..........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the
State.
Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of this criminal revision, the
revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated
20.05.2023, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-I,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Application
No.191 of 2022, under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. Heera Pal
Vs. Mamta Pal, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court-I,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, imposed condition nos.2
and 4 upon revisionist in para no.9 whereby the revisionist
is directed to pay 50% of the entire arrears and ₹4,000/-
per month to respondent nos.2 to 4 as interim
maintenance.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the revisionist
and respondent no 2 have been married for 22 years, and
two children were born out of their wedlock. Over time,
discord arose between them primarily concerning the
education of their sons. On 06.12.2018, respondent no. 2
left with her children to her paternal home and began
residing with her parents. Respondent no. 2 filed a Misc.
Case No.372 of 2019 against the revisionist for
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was
decided ex parte. By ex parte judgment and order dated
2025:UHC:6839
23.03.2021, the Court directed the revisionist to pay
₹6,000/- to respondent no.2-wife (Mamta Pal) ₹3,000/- to
respondent no.3-Aman Pal and ₹3,000/- to respondent
no.4-Ashish Pal, per month, as maintenance, from date of
judgment and order.
3. This ex parte judgment and order dated
23.03.2021 was put to challenge by the revisionist by filing
an application 3C for setting aside the ex parte judgment
and order along with another application 5C under Section
5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing
the 3C application.
4. These applications - 3C and 5C - have been
allowed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated
20.05.2023. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist is before this
Court only to the extent whereby certain conditions were
imposed by the trial court, which are as under inter alia:-
2. The court also directs the applicant to deposit
50% of the entire arrears of maintenance in the
court.
4. Till the disposal of the main application for
maintenance, the applicant, shall pay ₹4,000/-
per month as interim maintenance to the
applicant and her children if minor.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted
that the interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- per month is
excessive and that there is no provision under Section
126(2) of the Cr.P.C. for directing payment of arrears
pursuant to an order which has already been set aside.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent no. 2
contended that, being a lone woman, she has
independently borne the responsibilities of raising her two
children. He submitted that it is the duty of every husband
2025:UHC:6839
and father to maintain his wife and children. He further
argued that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Udham Singh Nagar rightly awarded the interim
maintenance of ₹4,000/- and directed payment of 50% of
the arrears, and committed no error in doing so.
7. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order
dated 20.05.2023 and the submissions advanced by both
parties, this Court finds no legal infirmity or perversity in
the said order warranting interference under its revisional
jurisdiction so far as it relates to the payment of ₹4,000/-
as interim maintenance. Furthermore the interim
maintenance amount of ₹4,000/- per month, as directed by
the Family Court, cannot be considered excessive or
arbitrary, especially in light of the current cost of living.
The order is fair, balanced, and rooted in both equity and
justice to that extent and the said condition cannot be said
to be onerous. But this Court finds the condition of
depositing 50% of the arrears of maintenance as a
condition for recalling/setting aside the ex parte order is
quite illegal and arbitrary simply for the reason that once
the ex parte judgment and order of maintenance has been
set aside and there is no order of maintenance, the arrears
thereof cannot be directed to be deposited as a condition
precedent. Maintenance would be ascertained by the
learned Trial Court after deciding the application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on hearing both parties. Thus this
condition deserves to be turned down by the Court.
Accordingly the condition no.2 is set aside.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition partly
allowed to this extent.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
04.08.2025
SK
