[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Arshad vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 19 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11373
Reserved on 19.11.2025
Delivered on 19.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.109 of 2024
Mohd. Arshad ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
1. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the Revisionist.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Pranav Singh and Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for
the Respondent nos.2 & 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been instituted
under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, read with Section 19 sub-section (4) of the
Family Courts Act to question the legality and correctness of
the judgment and order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the
Judge, Family Court, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun in
Misc. Case No. 36 of 2022, whereby the application under
Section 125 CrPC filed by Respondent No. 2 was allowed and
the Revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of
1
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11373
`10,000/- per month to the Respondent no.2 (wife) and
`8,000/- per month to the minor daughter i.e. Respondent
no.3.
2. The challenge essentially is to the finding of
entitlement as well as to the quantum of maintenance
awarded.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist, learned
State counsel and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and
3, and have examined the record available on file.
4. The marriage between the Revisionist and
Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 13.05.2012 in
accordance with Muslim rites and customs. From the
wedlock, Respondent No. 3, a daughter, was born.
5. The marital relationship did not remain cordial.
Differences arose between the spouses, culminating in
Respondent No. 2 leaving the matrimonial home and
residing separately along with the minor child.
6. Alleging that the Revisionist neglected and refused
to maintain her and the minor daughter despite having
sufficient means, Respondent No. 2 instituted proceedings
2
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11373
under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Vikas
Nagar.
7. Evidence was led by the parties by way of affidavits
and supporting material. Upon appreciation thereof, the
Family Court recorded findings on entitlement and quantum
and passed the impugned order awarding maintenance.
8. It is this order which has been assailed in revision.
9. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that
the Family Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 2
had not established any justifiable cause for living
separately and that she had deserted the Revisionist.
10. It was argued that the burden lay upon
Respondent No. 2 to prove neglect and inability to maintain
herself, which burden, according to learned counsel, was not
discharged.
11. Learned counsel further contended that the Family
Court proceeded to fix maintenance without any
documentary proof of income of the Revisionist and that the
quantum awarded is excessive and beyond his paying
capacity.
3
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11373
12. Emphasis was laid on the plea that Respondent
No. 2 is educationally qualified and gives tuitions and
therefore is not entitled to maintenance.
13. It was also urged that the Revisionist is required to
support his aged parents who are suffering from ailments
and that his financial condition deteriorated after the
lockdown period.
14. On these premises, it was submitted that the
impugned order suffers from material irregularity and
warrants interference.
15. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
opposed the revision and submitted that the Family Court
has carefully considered the pleadings and material and
recorded findings which are neither perverse nor illegal.
16. Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No. 2
has no stable or sufficient income and that vague assertions
regarding tuitions are unsupported by any evidence.
17. It was further argued that the right of the minor
child to maintenance is absolute and independent and that
the quantum awarded is commensurate with present day
4
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11373
living costs.
18. Learned AGA for the State supported the impugned
order and submitted that no jurisdictional error or perversity
is demonstrated so as to justify interference by this Court.
19. Before examining the merits, it is necessary to
reiterate the scope of revisional jurisdiction. Under Sections
397 and 401 CrPC, this Court does not sit in appeal over the
findings of the subordinate court. Interference is permissible
only where the order suffers from patent illegality,
perversity, or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of
justice.
20. Section 125 CrPC is a piece of social welfare
legislation. Its object is not to adjudicate matrimonial rights
in a strict civil sense, but to prevent destitution and
vagrancy by compelling a person having sufficient means to
support those who are dependent upon him.
21. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does
not mean absolute destitution. It contemplates a situation
where the wife does not have sufficient means to maintain
herself in a manner commensurate with the status of the
5
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11373
parties.
22. Equally well settled is the principle that mere
educational qualification or potential earning capacity of the
wife does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. The
relevant fact is whether she is actually earning and whether
such earning is sufficient.
23. In the present case, the plea that Respondent No.2
gives tuitions is not supported by any cogent material
indicating regular income or quantum thereof. The Family
Court was therefore justified in rejecting this contention.
24. The plea that Respondent No.2 left the matrimonial
home without sufficient cause is a disputed question of fact.
Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature
and are not the forum for detailed adjudication of
matrimonial fault. Unless conduct falling within the
statutory disqualifications is clearly established, such pleas
cannot defeat a claim for maintenance.
25. As regards the minor child, the obligation of the
father to maintain his child is unconditional. The right of the
child is independent and cannot be made subject to disputes
6
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11373
between the spouses.
26. The contention regarding financial hardship and
responsibility towards aged parents has also been
considered. While such factors are relevant, they do not by
themselves absolve the Revisionist of his statutory
obligation, particularly when no convincing material is
produced to establish incapacity.
27. The Family Court has exercised its discretion in
fixing the quantum of maintenance. The amount awarded
does not appear to be arbitrary or shockingly excessive,
keeping in view contemporary costs of living and the needs
of a wife and minor child.
28. This Court finds that the impugned judgment
reflects proper application of mind to the material on record
and does not suffer from perversity, illegality, or material
irregularity.
29. Interference at the revisional stage would amount
to re appreciation of evidence and substitution of discretion,
which is impermissible.
30. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the
7
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11373
considered opinion that the Criminal Revision lacks merit.
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is dismissed.
The judgment and order dated 01.12.2023 passed
by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vikas Nagar, District
Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 36 of 2022 is affirmed.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
19.12.2025
Akash
AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef73518c148
d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c891823fc
6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH
Date: 2025.12.19 16:46:53 +05'30'
Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2024 "Mohd. Arshad vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others."
Ashish Naithani J.
