Unknown vs Chaya Joshi And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 696 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Chaya Joshi And Another on 3 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:5679
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2025
                          03rd July, 2025

Sanjay Joshi                                    ..........Revisionist

                               Versus

Chaya Joshi and another                       ............Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bharat Tewari, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Gyanmati Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge (Additional Charge), Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.321 of 2019, Smt. Chaya Joshi and another Vs. Sanjay Joshi, whereby learned court below partly allowed the application filed by respondents for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

2. Facts in a nutshell are that the revisionist- husband and respondent-wife got married on 30.11.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals. After lapse of time, revisionist-husband and his family members started harassing the respondent-wife for demand of dowry. In time, respondent-wife got pregnant on which revisionist- husband and his family members wangled her to get the gender test of the fetus and admonished her not to bring a baby girl into this world, else she would be ousted from their house. On 05.12.2018 respondent-wife gave birth to a baby girl at which after a week's time both - respondent no.1-wife and the respondent no.2-daughter, were ousted from their house. Thereafter on assurance given by father of respondent no.1-wife to meet with the demand of the

2025:UHC:5679 revisionist-husband and his family members, respondent no.1-wife and respondent no.2-daughter were taken back, but after few days later respondent no.1-wife and respondent no.2-daughter were again ousted from their house. Many a time's efforts were made by the respondent no.1-wife to resolve the marital discord, for which on one occasion she met revisionist-husband and pacified him to stay together, on which the revisionist-husband hurled abuses and assaulted her due to which she sustained injuries. Seeing no way out, respondent no.1-wife filed an Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance amounting to ₹50,000/- per month to learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar to which the revisionist-husband filed objection denying all the allegations levelled against him. Learned Additional Principal Judge (Additional Charge), Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.321 of 2019, Smt. Chaya Joshi and another Vs. Sanjay Joshi, vide its judgment and order dated 09.04.2025, directed the revisionist-husband to pay an amount of ₹12,000/-, for the maintenance of respondent no.1-wife and respondent no.2-daughter. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order of maintenance passed by learned Judge is passed without taking into consideration the ratio of income of the revisionist-husband and has directed him to pay excessive amount as maintenance to the respondent no.1-wife, which is illegal and improper as the revisionist- husband has not much to give from his income at present. Respondent no.1-wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. but she was unable to prove the allegations leveled by her against the revisionist-husband.

2025:UHC:5679

4. Having considered the submission made by counsel for the revisionist-husband and looking into the facts of the case, that respondent no.1-wife has to look after respondent no.2-daughter also and taking into account the present rate of inflation the maintenance awarded by learned Additional Principal Judge (Additional Charge), Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, vide his judgment and order dated 09.04.2025, is not exorbitant, and is justifiable. There is no perversity in the judgment and order impugned which may warrant any interference by this Court.

5. Accordingly criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.07.2025 SK