5 August vs Haripriya Mawri
2025 Latest Caselaw 1715 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

5 August vs Haripriya Mawri on 5 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                         2025:UHC:6846
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2025
                         05 August, 2025
Mohan Singh Mawri                                       --Revisionist
                                 Versus
Haripriya Mawri                                    --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-

      Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel
      assisted by Mr. Siddhant Manral, learned
      counsel for revisionist.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Criminal Case No.62 of 2023, Smt. Haripriya Mawri Vs. Mohan Singh Mawri, whereby, the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancing the maintenance amount granted earlier.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the revisionist and respondent were got married on 15.01.1990 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Due to some marital discord between them, the revisionist filed a Case No.54 of 2009 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was decided by the learned Court vide its order dated 29.01.2011 and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent-wife.

3. Thereafter, in the year 2011, both the revisionist and the respondent against the said judgment and order, filed revision CRLR No.34 of 2011 and CRLR No.77 of 2011 respectively before this Court and a

2025:UHC:6846 Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2018 dismissed the revision filed by the revisionist and allowed the revision filed by the respondent and enhanced the maintenance amount granted earlier to Rs.45,000/-, which was directed to be paid since 21.04.2011.

4. Now, again respondent had filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Family Judge, Nainital, for enhancement of maintenance amount, who vide its impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2025 enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.70,000/- per month to be paid on 10th day of every month from the date of order. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid, revisionist is before this Court.

5. Learned senior counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned Court below had allowed the application for enhanced maintenance preferred by the respondent-wife without taking note of the fact that the respondent has also been receiving recurring monetary benefits from rents from her various properties including commercial properties and has also received properties from her family and over and above that she is receiving regular maintenance of Rs.45,000/- from the revisionist and as such the enhancement of the maintenance by the learned Court below is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. He further submits that the respondent is earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month from her service as an insurance agent and has received substantial amount by way of succession. Therefore, the revisionist should not be burdened to pay the enhanced maintenance, which would place him in a difficult position.

2025:UHC:6846

6. He further argues that the respondent has gained monetary benefits since the maintenance was already enhanced by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2018 and the respondent received the enhanced amount of Rs.45,000/- w.e.f. 21.04.2011 and she in addition received immoveable properties from her parental side and as such, she herself has attained multiple sources of income, which has put her in a far enriched and suitable pedestal as compared to the revisionist, who only has salary to provide him everything and safeguard his life after retirement.

7. Learned senior counsel for the revisionist further argues that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife shall be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and also that she does not feel handicapped in the course of life. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. He submits that in the present case in hand, respondent abandoned the revisionist and made him live in isolation with no companionship and deprived the revisionist of spousal consortium. Despite that, the revisionist continues to provide adequate and sufficient maintenance to the respondent-wife in order to ensure that she leads a dignified life. The impugned order acts as salt on the wounds of the revisionist.

8. Learned senior counsel for the vehemently argues that the learned Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing the maintenance order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court to whom it is subordinate. He further argues that Section 127 Cr.P.C. only provides for enhancement of maintenance only if the condition of person receiving the maintenance is changed, therefore, the learned Court below has erred in

2025:UHC:6846 law by enhancing the maintenance only on the basis of change in salary of the revisionist i.e. the person paying the maintenance.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the judgment and order impugned in the present criminal revision. The arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the revisionist regarding the failure to consider the financial status of the respondent are totally bereft of merit, as the learned Family Judge has considered the circumstances of both the parties in a very detailed manner in the impugned judgment and order. The monthly income of the revisionist at the time when earlier enhancement was done by a Coordinate Bench of this Court was Rs.1,05,368/-, which in 2025 is Rs.3,28,680/- and after necessary deduction it is Rs.2,48,680/-, out of which, only Rs.70,000/- has been awarded as maintenance by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, which is quite considerate and needs no interference.

10. The argument advanced by learned senior counsel for the revisionist regarding the fact that Section 127 Cr.P.C. application lies only when there is change in circumstances of party receiving the maintenance, is quite fallacious, as a bare perusal of provision of Section 127 Cr.P.C., it reveals that it is maintainable if there is a change in circumstance of either party. The relevant portion of Section 127 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below:-

"127. Alteration in allowance- (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same Section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit."

2025:UHC:6846

11. The argument of learned senior counsel for the revisionist regarding incompetence of learned Family Judge to enhance the maintenance amount granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, is highly preposterous and absurd, as learned Family Judge holds the original jurisdiction to entertain the enhancement applications under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and has rightly enhanced it after keeping in view the change in circumstances. The reasoning given by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court while allowing the application is quite convincing and needs no interference.

12. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is dismissed in-limine.

13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.08.2025 PN PREETI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383 31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,

NEGI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE 064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.08.06 16:56:12 +05'30'