Uttarakhand High Court
Mithun Vedi vs Ujita Rawat And Another on 24 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6538
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.766 of 2023
Mithun Vedi --Revisionist
Versus
Ujita Rawat and Another --Respondents
With
Criminal Revision No.48 of 2023
Smt. Ujita Rawat --Revisionist
Versus
Mithun Vedi and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shakti Saurabh Purohit, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, for the
revisionist-husband in CRLR/766/2023 and for
respondent No.1 in CRLR/48/2023.
Mr. Devansh Kaushik, learned counsel holding brief
of Mr. R.B. Kala, learned counsel for revisionist-wife
(Ujita Rawat) in CRLR/ 48/2023.
Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent No.2.
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.766 of 2023 are taken into
consideration.
2. By means of the present criminal revision, the
revisionist has put to challenge the impugned judgment
2025:UHC:6538
and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal
Case No.53 of 2020 Smt. Ujita Rawat Vs. Shri Mithun
Vedi, whereby, the application filed under Section 125
Cr.P.C. by the respondent No.1-Ujita Rawat for
maintenance was allowed and the revisionist-Mithun
Vedi was directed to pay Rs.12,000/-per month to her
wife-Ujita Rawat as maintenance, on 7th day of each
month. The revisionist-husband in CRLR/766/2023 has
filed the criminal revision for quashing the impugned
order dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family
Court, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, while the revisionist-wife
in CRLR/48/2023 for enhancement of the maintenance.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist
submits that the learned Court below had erred in law
and failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 is a law
graduate and capable of earning and maintaining herself,
thus, she is not entitled for grant of any maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the
learned Court below had directed to pay the huge
amount, but the revisionist had many liabilities
including repayment of loan and after bearing all the
aforesaid expenses, he has not left with such huge
amount, which he could pay to the respondent No.1-wife.
4. It is contended by learned counsel appearing
for the revisionist that the learned Court below erred in
law and failed to appreciate the provision of Section
125(4) Cr.P.C., wherein, it is held that the wife is not
entitled for maintenance, if she refuses to live with her
husband without any sufficient reason, thus, the order
passed by the learned Court below suffers from manifest
error of law and facts.
2025:UHC:6538
5. Learned counsel appearing for the wife
submits that the revisionist is working as Technician
Grade 4 in Nestle India Limited Pantnagar and he
himself submitted his pay slip before the learned Court
below, wherein, it was mentioned that he was getting
Rs.51,000/- per month as salary. He further submits
that his monthly salary for the Month April-2022 was
Rs.1,02,126/-, for the month May-2022 was Rs.81,808/-
and for the month August-2022 was Rs.72,925/- and
the revisionist has admitted before the learned Court
below that his salary was usually increased time to time.
6. He further submits that the revisionist
deserted his wife on 22.07.2020 after committing
maarpeet with her and since then she is living in her
parental house. He also submits that the learned Court
below had awarded a meager amount of Rs.12,000/- per
month which is not quite sufficient in view of the salary
of the revisionist and further the revisionist had not paid
a single penny to the revisionist after passing the order
dated 19.10.2022. It is further contended by him that
the respondent No.1-wife had no source of income and
her father is a cook and earning Rs.8,000/- per month,
who is not able to take care of her, her younger
unmarried sister and her mother in such a little salary.
He further contends that the respondent No.1 is legally
wedded wife of the revisionist and the revisionist had
never tried to bring back the respondent No.1-wife.
7. 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
learned Trial Court delved upon the issue in great detail
2025:UHC:6538
and passed the impugned judgment and order. The
amount is quite considerate and therefore, it needs no
interference. The reasoning given by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, while allowing
the application of the respondent No.1-wife vide its order
dated 19.10.2022, is quite convincing and needs no
interference.
8. In view of the above, the present criminal
revision is dismissed. Consequently, the CRLR/48/2023
filed by the wife-Ujita Rawat is also dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, in both the
criminal revisions, also stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
24.07.2025
PN
PREETI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadb
e38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE
81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08
D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.07.25 15:07:59 +05'30'
