Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.269 of 2024
Kundan Singh Rawat
--Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another
--Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Dy.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Raj Kr. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This revision is preferred against the judgment
dated 01.08.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dehradun in Misc. Crl. Case No.170 of
2020 (Aarti Rawat v. Kundan S. Rawat) whereby the
maintenance application filed by respondent no.2 was
allowed to the tune of Rs.20,000/- from the date of
presentation of application i.e. 08.09.2020.
2. Facts in nutshell are that parties to the
matrimony were married on 03.03.2014 at a place in
Dehradun. According to respondent-wife, she was
subjected to harassment at the hands of her mother in
law for bringing lesser dowry. The revisionist also
tortured her physically in the state of intoxication. Out
of progeny of parties, a son was born on 09.05.2017. No
expenses for delivery were incurred by the revisionist.
Due to harassment towards demand of dowry, she has
been staying at her parents' house since 27.07.2019. An
amount of Rs.25,000/- was claimed as maintenance for
herself and her son.
3. The revisionist appeared before the Court
below and filed his objection to the application and made
counter-allegations therein. According to him,
respondent-wife is a highly qualified lady and he wants to
keep her with him. Hence he prayed for dismissal of
application.
4. The Court below after evaluating the evidence,
allowed the application of respondent-wife as mentioned
in paragraph no.1 of this judgment. Challenging the said
judgment, present revision has been filed.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the evidence on record.
6. The Family Court relying upon the authority of
Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 has held
that the amount of maintenance should be fixed
according to the status of parties only. The Court
observed that the respondent-wife stated that the
revisionist has done the course of Hotel Management and
is working in some good hotel and earning Rs.70-80
thousand per month. However, his own personal
expenses are also incurred. The respondent-wife is also
highly qualified MBA degree holder and she can also do a
job in Dehradun but at present she has no independent
income. The Court however observed that avoidance and
denial of respondent-wife by the revisionist has been
proved. Hence looking to the social status of parties and
his monthly income, an amount of Rs.20,000/- per
month was awarded.
7. I have perused the impugned judgment and
also heard the contentions of parties. In my view, the
findings recorded by the Court below are the findings of
fact keeping in view the authority of the Apex Court.
Moreover, the amount of Rs.20,000/- cannot be said to
be exorbitant. Hence, I am of the opinion that no
interference is called for.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition
fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Interim order
dated 30.04.2025 is hereby vacated.
9. Inform the Court below to proceed ahead as
per law.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
Rdang
