Uttarakhand High Court
Kavita And Anr. --Revisionists vs Sunil Rawan on 23 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6482
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
23 July, 2025
Criminal Revision No. 966 of 2024
Kavita and Anr. --Revisionists
Versus
Sunil Rawan --Respondent
With
Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2025
Sunil Rawan --Revisionist
Versus
Kavita and Anr. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel, for the
revisionists in CRLR/966/2024 and for respondents in
CRLR/139/2025.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for respondent in
CRLR/966/2024 and for revisionist in CRLR/
139/2025.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since these matters are arising out of the same
judgment & order and common question of law and facts
are involved, hence, they are taken up together and are
being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of
brevity, the facts of CRLR No.966 of 2024 are taken into
consideration.
2. By means of the present criminal revision, the
revisionists have put to challenge the impugned judgment
and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.367 of
2023 Smt. Kavita and another Vs. Sunil Rawan, whereby,
the application 8A filed by the revisionists for interim
maintenance was allowed and the respondent-Sunil Rawan
was directed to pay Rs.20,000/-per month (Rs.10,000/-
per month each to revisionist No.1-wife and revisionist
No.2-minor daughter) as interim maintenance, on 10th day
2025:UHC:6482
of each month and the amount of arrear was also directed
to be paid within one month from the date of passing that
order. The revisionists in CRLR/966/2024 has filed the
criminal revision for enhancement of the interim
maintenance, while the revisionist-husband in
CRLR/139/2025 has filed the said criminal revision for
dismissal of the application filed by the respondents in that
revision for interim maintenance.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits
that learned Family Court while passing the impugned
judgment and order failed to consider the fact that the
respondent-husband was earning heavy income and
wrongly fixed the maintenance @Rs.20,000/- per month for
both the revisionists, which is too meager and insufficient
for the survival of the revisionists. He further submits that
as per the provisions contained under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
the husband is liable to maintain his wife and children,
while further if the wife and children are living separately,
then also it cannot be held that the husband is not liable
for maintaining his wife and children, thus, the learned
Family Court had committed a grave error in awarding
such a meager amount of maintenance. Further, since the
respondent had admitted in his affidavit that he is earning
an income of Rs.92,805/- from his job, still the
maintenance was not fixed one third of the income of the
respondent. In order to substantiate its argument learned
counsel for the revisionists had drawn the attention of this
Court to the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
husband submits that the revisionist No.1-wife is Ph.D.
degree holder and qualified UGC-NET Examination for the
post of Assistant Professor and despite being highly
educated and on purpose, she is sitting idle, therefore, she
2025:UHC:6482
is not entitled any maintenance. He further submits that it
is a well established law that a well educated and qualified
spouse not making any efforts for the purposes of job or
finding a source of livelihood, cannot as a matter of right,
granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further
contends that the revisionist No.1-wife had concealed the
facts regarding her income as well as her account
statements, hence, she was not entitled to any relief.
5. I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
documents available on record as well as the judgment and
order impugned in the present criminal revision. The
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
revisionist regarding the failure to consider the financial
status of the revisionist, is totally bereft of merit. The
learned Trial Court delved upon the issue in great detail
and passed the impugned judgment and order. The
amount is quite considerate and therefore, it needs no
interference. The reasoning given by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Haridwar while allowing the
application of the revisionists vide its order dated
11.12.2024, is quite convincing and needs no interference.
Moreover, only interim maintenance has been awarded by
the learned Court below, the final adjudication of main
petition is yet to be done.
6. In view of the above, the present criminal
revision is dismissed. Consequently, the CRLR/139/2025
filed by the husband-Sunil Rawan is also dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, in both the
criminal revisions, also stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.07.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0
NEGI
276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D8
4BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.07.25 10:50:19 +05'30'
