Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 31 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6732
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2025
31st July, 2025
Vijay Kumar Sharma Alias Babu .........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ..........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, B.H. for the
State.
Mr. Neeraj Garg and Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocates for the
respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of this criminal revision, the
revisionist has put to challenge the order dated
20.02.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dehradun in Case No.255 of 2024, Smt. Durga
Sharma Vs. Shri Vijay Kumar.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent
no.2 got married to one Shiv Narayan Sharma on
20.06.1995 as per Hindu Rites and rituals at Dehradun
and the said marriage was second marriage of Shiv
Narayan Sharma. Shiv Narayan Sharma died in the
month of July, 2014 and out of the said marriage no
child was born. Revisionist is the step son of respondent
no.2. Due to ill treatment at the hands of the revisionist
(stepson) respondent no.2 (stepmother) left her house.
Respondent no.2 (stepmother) is an old lady, left with no
means to take care of her moved an application before
the learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun under Section
144 of B.N.S.S. 2023, seeking maintenance amounting to
₹50,000/- per month from the revisionist (stepson). In the
2025:UHC:6732
said case the respondent no.2 moved an application for
interim maintenance. Learned Judge vide its judgment and
order dated 20.02.2025, directed the revisionist (stepson) to
pay an amount of ₹7,000/-, per month, for interim
maintenance of respondent no.2 (stepmother) on 10th date
of each month. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and
order, the revisionist is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist (stepson)
submits that the order of interim maintenance passed by
learned Judge is passed without taking into consideration
the ratio of income of the revisionist (stepson) and has
directed him to pay excessive amount as maintenance to
the respondent no.2 (stepmother), which is illegal and
improper as the revisionist (stepmother) has not much
source to give from his income at present.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2
(stepmother) denied all the submissions of the revisionist
(stepson) and submits that the revisionist (stepson) is a
builder and also deals in purchase and sale of lands and
has many rental properties from which he generates
handsome amount of money and learned Judge, Family
Court, Dehradun, Dehradun did not commit any error in
his order of maintenance directing the revisionist (stepson)
to pay ₹7,000/- as interim maintenance per month to
respondent no.2 (stepmother).
5. Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order
dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dehradun, as well as the submissions
advanced by both parties, this Court finds no legal infirmity
or perversity warranting interference under revisional
jurisdiction. The Family Court has passed the order for
interim maintenance after considering the relevant facts on
record, including the age and dependency of respondent
2025:UHC:6732
no.2 (stepmother), and the moral as well as legal obligation
of the revisionist (stepson) to maintain her under Section
144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. It is well-settled law that a stepmother who is
childless and dependent is entitled to claim maintenance
from her stepson, particularly when the stepson is
financially capable. The revisionist (stepson) has not
produced any cogent or convincing material to rebut the
respondent no.2 assertion regarding his income from
business and rental sources. Mere assertion of financial
hardship, unsupported by documentary evidence, cannot
defeat a statutory obligation to maintain a dependent
family member. Furthermore, the interim maintenance
amount of ₹7,000/- per month, as directed by the Family
Court, cannot be termed as excessive or arbitrary,
especially in view of current cost of living and the age of the
respondent no.2 (stepmother). The order is fair, balanced,
and rooted in both equity and justice. Hence, this Court
does not find any merit in the present revision petition.
Further, the final adjudication of the respective claims of
the parties is yet to be made while passing the final order
on the application for maintenance.
7. Accordingly criminal revision lacks merit and is
dismissed in limine.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
31.07.2025
SK
