Uttarakhand High Court
8 August vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 18 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7249
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2024
18 August, 2025
Deepak Chadha
--Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
1. By means of present criminal revision,
revisionist has put to challenge the order dated
28.11.2023, passed by Additional Judge, Family Court,
Dehradun, District Dehraun in Criminal Case No.161 of
2023, Smt. Swati Chadha & other vs. Deepak Chadha,
filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist
(husband) was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to
respondent no.2 (wife), Rs.10,000/- per month to
respondent no.3 (son) and Rs.10,000/- per month to
respondent no.4 (son) as interim maintenance.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
no.2 (wife) has filed an application for interim
maintenance, stating that she married the revisionist on
03.12.2011. She has alleged that she was subjected to
mental and physical harassment due to dowry demands.
As her children are very young, she is unable to work
and has no source of income. She is dependent on her
2025:UHC:7249
parents, who bear all the expenses for her and her
children. The revisionist is employed in a private
company and earns approximately Rs. 90,000/- per
month. His mother receives a pension of Rs. 40,000/-
from his late father's government service, and the family
resides in a house valued at around Rs. 80 lakhs. The
revisionist has not provided any maintenance so far and
has neglected her. On this basis, Respondent No.2 (wife)
has prayed for interim maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per
month for herself and her minor children from the
revisionist. The trial court, after hearing both the parties,
allowed the said application and granted interim
maintenance as stated in para 1 of this judgment.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist
(husband) has come up before this Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the impugned order is bad in law, as it is
contrary to the legal provisions and the facts available on
record. He further submits that respondent no. 2 left her
matrimonial home along with the two minor sons without
any cogent reason and has been residing separately ever
since. It is also contended that respondent no.2 is
earning from her job, and the learned trial court failed to
consider this aspect while granting interim maintenance
to her. He further submits that she is getting
Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance in other
matrimonial case instituted by her.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
nos.2 to 4 submits that the impugned order passed by
the learned trial court is absolutely correct, having been
passed after due consideration of the material facts
available on record.
2025:UHC:7249
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the material available on record.
6. The learned Trial Court has duly considered
the pleadings, the financial status of the parties, and the
welfare of the minor children while granting interim
maintenance. The contention raised by the revisionist
that respondent no.2 is earning from her service is
unsupported by any cogent or credible evidence on
record and the same shall be considered by the trial
court at the stage of final adjudication of the case. Mere
oral assertions without documentary proof cannot be the
basis to deny interim maintenance, especially when the
wife and minor children are admittedly residing
separately and are dependent on her parental family.
7. Moreover, the welfare of minor children is of
paramount consideration under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and
the amount awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the
wife and two minor children is neither excessive nor
unreasonable in the present circumstances, keeping in
view the revisionist's stated income and standard of
living.
8. This Court also finds that no cogent
justification has been provided by the revisionist for not
paying any maintenance to his wife and children so far,
despite having sufficient means to do so. In this view of
the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the
impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional
error, perversity, or illegality warranting interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
2025:UHC:7249
10. Interim order dated 03.07.2024 stands
vacated.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.08.2025
AK
