Uttarakhand High Court
8 July vs Sarika Tomar Alias Guddi on 8 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5854
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2024
08 July, 2025
Tarseb Singh Tomar Alias Pappu
--Revisionist
Versus
Sarika Tomar Alias Guddi
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present criminal revision is directed
against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024,
passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar,
District Dehradun in Misc. Criminal Case No.165 of
2023, Sarika Tomar vs. Tarseb Singh Tomar, whereby the
application filed by respondent-wife for interim
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been
allowed and the revisionist-husband was directed to pay
Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent-wife.
2. Facts in a nutshell are that the revisionist-
husband and respondent-wife got married on
06.11.2001 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of
the said wedlock, three children were born, namely,
Yash Tomar, 19 years old, Ridhi, 18 years old and Anant
Tomar, 10 years old. Sometime after the marriage,
revisionist-husband used to mistreat the respondent-
2025:UHC:5854
wife under the influence of alcohol. Thereafter, on
21.05.2023, revisionist-husband abandoned the
respondent-wife after misbehaving with her. Revisionist-
husband earns Rs.60,000/- per month by working at a
private television channel, property dealing and selling
milk. Thus, respondent-wife has prayed for a monthly
maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- for herself from the
revisoinsit-husband.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that the order of maintenance passed by learned trial
court is without taking into consideration the ratio of
income of the revisionist-husband. Learned trial court
has directed him to pay excessive amount as
maintenance to the respondent-wife, which is illegal and
improper. He further submits that prior to filing of the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and during the
pendency of the said application, respondent-wife was
employed with the Contractor Shri Shubham
Chaudhary. He also submits that respondent-wife is
living separately without just cause and without any
fault on the part of the revisionist-husband, thus,
respondent-wife is not entitled to receive any
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-wife submits that the order passed by
learned trial court is well-reasoned; passed after due
appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case
and it does not suffer from any illegality. He further
submits that respondent is currently unemployed and
has no independent source of income or support. She is
entirely dependent on the maintenance for survival and
basic sustenance.
5. Having considered the submissions made by
2025:UHC:5854
counsel for the parties and looking into the facts of the
case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order
has been passed after due consideration of the facts and
material on record. The learned trial court has rightly
exercised its jurisdiction in awarding interim
maintenance based on the needs of the wife and
financial capacity of the husband. The amount of
Rs.8,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or
arbitrary, particularly, in the light of the prevailing cost
of living and the fact that wife is admittedly not in a
position to maintain herself independently.
6. Accordingly, there is no perversity in the
judgment and order impugned which may warrant any
interference by this Court. Accordingly criminal revision
lacks merit and is dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
08.07.2025
AK
