Uttarakhand High Court
7 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6913
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 488 of 2025
07 August, 2025
Manoj --Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present criminal revision, the
revisionist-husband has put to challenge the impugned
judgment and order dated 04.06.2025 passed by
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Misc. Case No.49 of
2021 Smt. Pooja Singh and another Vs. Sh. Manoj,
whereby, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
filed by the respondent No.2-wife was rejected, while
application filed by respondent No.3-minor son for
maintenance allowance was partly allowed and the
revisionist was directed to pay Rs.4,000/-per month as
maintenance to respondent No.3-minor son from the
date of filing that application.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Trial Court is based upon the conjecture and
surmises. Learned Court below failed to appreciate the
fact that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was
filed by the respondent No.2 with false and frivolous
allegation.
2025:UHC:6913
3. He further submits that the learned Court
below failed to appreciate the fact that earlier, the
interim maintenance was granted to the tune of
Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.2,000/-per month to
respondent No.2-wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to
respondent No.3-minor son) was granted by learned
Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, Dehradun
vide its order dated 29.08.2022, was granted and
thereafter, without taking into consideration about the
working status of the revisionist, illegally granted
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.3, which
is on very higher side as the revisionist is a Driver. He
also submits that the respondent No.2 left the
matrimonial house as per her wish and without
informing the revisionist and his family members, and
therefore, respondent Nos.2 & 3 are not entitled to get
any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment
and order passed by learned Court below.
5. I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
documents available on record as well as the judgment
and order impugned in the present criminal revision.
The learned Trial Court delved upon the issue in great
detail and passed the impugned judgment and order of
maintenance only in favour of respondent No.3, a
minor son of the parties. The amount is quite
considerate and therefore, it needs no interference. The
reasoning given by the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun
2025:UHC:6913
while partly allowing the application of the respondent
No.3 vide its order dated 04.06.2025, is quite
convincing and needs no interference.
6. In view of the above, the present criminal
revision is dismissed in-limine.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f
NEGI
9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83
D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.08.07 15:59:28 +05'30'
