Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Aarti Devi And Another on 14 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7202
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 500 of 2025
14th August, 2025
Rakesh Kumar ..........Revisionist
Versus
Aarti Devi and another ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. R.P. Nauityal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pavan
Kumar Nath, Advocate for the revisionist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present criminal revision is directed against
the judgment and order dated 11.07.2025, passed by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar,
Pauri-Garhwal, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 67 of 2022, Arti
Devi and Another vs. Rakesh Kumar, whereby the learned
Judge partly allowed the application filed by respondent
no.1 (wife) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of
B.N.S.S., 2023) and directed the revisionist-husband to pay
maintenance to the tune of ₹3,000/-, per month, to the
respondents.
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that
respondent no.1 (wife) was married to the revisionist
(husband) on 03.03.2020. From the inception of the
marriage, respondent no.1 (wife) was subjected to physical
and emotional abuse at the hands of the revisionist
(husband). This abuse intensified during her pregnancy
and continued even after the birth of their son. Following a
police report and a failed reconciliation attempt, the abuse
escalated to such an extent that she attempted suicide by
poisoning herself and eventually left the company of the
revisionist (husband). Seeing no way out of this ordeal,
respondent no.1 (wife) moved an application before the
2025:UHC:7202
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kotdwar,
Pauri-Garhwal, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144
of B.N.S.S., 2023) on 10.06.2022. The court partly allowed
the application, directing the revisionist (husband) to pay a
sum of ₹3,000/-, per month, to the respondents - ₹2,000/-
to respondent no.1 (wife) and ₹1,000/- to respondent no.2
(minor son). Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the
revisionist (husband) has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist (husband)
submits that the lower court's judgment is flawed, being
contrary to the evidence and law, and is based on
conjectures and surmises. He further submits that the
maintenance application filed by respondent no.1 (wife) was
a form of harassment, as she allegedly left the matrimonial
home voluntarily on 21.05.2021 and exhibited cruel
behavior. The learned Judge failed to consider these facts
and did not properly scrutinize the false and unproven
allegations made by respondent no.1 (wife). Furthermore,
the court made a gross error in assessing the petitioner's
income as ₹12,000/-, per month, while his actual earnings
from poultry farming are meager. Therefore, the
maintenance awarded at ₹3,000/-, per month, is excessive
and unsustainable.
4. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionist (husband) and from
perusal of the impugned judgment and order, this Court
upholds the judgment and order dated 11.07.2025, passed
by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Kotdwar, Pauri-Garhwal, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 67 of
2022, Arti Devi and Another vs. Rakesh Kumar, directing
the revisionist (husband) to pay ₹3,000/-, per month, in
maintenance to his wife and minor son. This Court finds
that respondent no.1 (wife) had valid reasons to leave the
matrimonial home due to physical and emotional abuse, as
2025:UHC:7202
substantiated by the police report and her suicide attempt.
The revisionist (husband) claims that respondent no.1
(wife) left voluntarily and that the maintenance amount was
excessive in light of his income, are found to be without
merit. This Court is also of the opinion that the award of
maintenance is reasonable and within financial capacity of
the revisionist-husband.
5. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit
and is dismissed in limine
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
14.08.2025
SK
