Uttarakhand High Court
3 August vs Mohan Singh Mawri on 13 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7131
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 498 of 2025
13 August, 2025
Hari Priya Mawri
--Revisionist
Versus
Mohan Singh Mawri
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vishwast Kandpal, learned counsel for the revisionist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This criminal revision is filed against the
judgment and order dated 02.07.2025, passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Misc. Criminal
Case No. 62 of 2023, titled Haripriya Mawri vs. Mohan
Singh Mawri. By the impugned order, the learned trial
court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 127 of the
Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 146 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), enhanced the monthly
maintenance amount from Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-,
payable by the respondent to the revisionist. The enhanced
maintenance is directed to be paid with effect from the date
of the order, i.e. 02.07.2025.
2. Facts of the case are that revisionist filed an
application under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, stating that she had previously filed Criminal Misc.
Case No.54/2009 against her husband, where the court
initially awarded her Rs.12,000/- per month as
maintenance through an order dated 29.01.2011. Both
parties challenged the order through criminal revisions in
the Uttarakhand High Court, which on 03.07.2018
disposed of both petitions by allowing the revisionist's
2025:UHC:7131
revision and increasing the maintenance to Rs.45,000 per
month, effective from 21.04.2011. At that time, the
husband's monthly income was determined to be
Rs.1,05,368/-. The revisionist claimed that her husband's
income has substantially increased to Rs.2,85,192 per
month, while her own health has deteriorated, preventing
her from working as a temporary post office agent. Her
parents are deceased, and due to rising inflation and
medical needs, her expenses have increased significantly.
She stated that she is solely dependent on the maintenance
for survival, whereas her husband, a senior professor, leads
a luxurious lifestyle. Thus, she requested that the monthly
maintenance amount be increased from Rs.45,000/- to
Rs.90,000/-.
3. The respondent (husband) appeared before the
trial court and filed objections (Paper No. 14ka) against the
revisionist's application, stating that he has been regularly
paying the increased maintenance amount of Rs.45,000 per
month as directed by this Court for the revisionist and their
son. He stated that the revisionist is currently in good
health, her son is now an adult and employed, and
supports her financially. The respondent lives alone, is in
poor health, and depends on domestic help, incurring
significant expenses. He also bears the responsibility of
supporting his elderly parents, niece, and nephew. The
respondent claimed that the revisionist earns around ₹4
lakhs per month through various sources, including
inherited property, rental income, LIC/post office agency
work, and bank deposits inherited from her late brother. He
also stated that he had purchased a plot for the revisionist,
while he himself lacks residential property and requires
funds to construct one. The respondent further stated that
he will retire in June 2027, has no pension benefits, and
faces high expenses, including income tax deductions of
2025:UHC:7131
Rs.8-10 lakhs annually, Rs.50,000 on medical needs, and
additional costs for research, books, travel, rent, and
utilities. Therefore, he argued that the revisionist is
financially self-sufficient and that the maintenance of
Rs.45,000 is already excessive for one person, and he
requested that her application be dismissed.
4. The learned trial court, after hearing both
parties and perusing the record, found that the revisionist
(wife) successfully demonstrated that the respondent's
(husband's) income had significantly increased in
comparison to her own income since the previous
maintenance order was passed. While the revisionist
currently receives Rs.45,000/- per month as maintenance
from the respondent and earns approximately
Rs.20,000/- per month from her available resources--
totaling Rs.65,000/- per month--the respondent's monthly
income, after necessary income tax deductions, is
Rs.2,48,680/-. The trial court, vide its order dated
02.07.2025, allowed the application of the revisionist (wife)
and directed the respondent (husband) to pay an additional
Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance, over and
above the previously ordered amount of Rs.45,000/-,
making a total of Rs.70,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the
said order, the revisionist (wife) has approached this Court
seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that
the trial court erred in not appreciating the fact that the
revisionist is an elderly woman with an unemployed son
born out of wedlock, and therefore has greater financial
liabilities than the respondent. He further submits that the
respondent's claims regarding liabilities towards relatives
and expenses on domestic help were vague and
unsupported by any documentary evidence.
2025:UHC:7131
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
revisionist and on perusal of record, this Court is of the
view that the trial court has exercised its discretion
judiciously and in accordance with settled principles of law.
The trial court has correctly assessed the comparative
financial capacity of the parties. While the respondent's net
income is assessed at Rs.2,48,680/- per month, the
revisionist's own earnings are around Rs.20,000/- per
month. The maintenance of Rs.70,000/- thus constitutes a
little over 28% of the respondent's net income, which is not
excessive and remains well within the reasonable bracket,
especially considering that the revisionist is not entirely
without means.
7. Further, the enhancement of Rs.25,000/- per
month over and above the earlier award of Rs.45,000/-
reflects a reasoned and proportionate adjustment in light of
the rising cost of living and increased income of the
respondent. There is no perversity, illegality, or material
irregularity in the reasoning or conclusion of the trial court
that would warrant interference under revisional
jurisdiction. The learned trial court has carefully evaluated
the financial position and necessities of both parties and
arrived at a just determination of the enhanced
maintenance.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit
and is accordingly dismissed in-limine.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.08.2025
AK
