Uttarakhand High Court
5 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 15 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6126
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 556 of 2023
15 July, 2025
Radheshyam Joshi
--Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Ahikari, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Prasoon Dhuryal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This is a revision preferred under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act
against the order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Judge,
Family Court-I, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Misc. Criminal Case No.158 of 2016, Smt. Rajeshwari Joshi
& others vs. Shri Radheshyam Joshi, under Section 125
Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist-husband was directed to pay
Rs.18,000 per month to respondent no.2-Smt. Rajeshwari
Joshi (wife), Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent no.3-Km.
Jyoti (daughter) from the date of application till 12.07.2018
when she began working and earned sufficient income to
maintain herself and Rs.6,000/- per month to the
respondent no.4-Km. Tanuja (daughter) till she gets
married.
2. Facts in nutshell are that an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by respondent no.2-wife
stating therein that the marriage of respondent no.2 and
revisionist was solemnized in the April, 1990 and out of the
2025:UHC:6126
said wedlock, three daughters were born. After marriage,
when the revisionist-husband was away for his Indian
Army duty, his brother, namely, Dinesh Chandra Joshi
attempted to sexually assault her and harassed her when
she resisted. The revisionist-husband was informed about
the behavior of his brother, but he told respondent no.2 not
to lodge any complaint against him. Thereafter, respondent
no.2-wife lived with the revisionist-husband in government
quarter for a year, but was sent back to his ancestral home
and her brother-in-law again tried to molest her. Then,
respondent no.2-wife returned to her parents' house due to
severe harassment. It is further stated in the application
that the relations of respondent no.2 and revisionist
remained normal for 7-8 years during which the daughters
were born; revisionist's brother and his wife instigated the
revisionist against respondent no.2. The revisionist began
physically and mentally harassing respondent no.2,
stopped providing maintenance and taunted his daughters
due to which, their eldest daughter, namely, Sunita
committed suicide in 2012 by consuming poison.
Respondent no.2 lived in the hope that with the passage of
time, there will be some positive change in the behaivour of
the revisionist, but his behavior remained unchanged.
Thereafter, revisionist has not paid maintenance and he
also pressured the respondent no.2 to transfer a plot of
land given to her by her family into his name. It is also
stated in the application that respondent no.3, namely, Km.
Jyoti is pursuing a B. Pharma course and respondent
no.4-Km. Tanuja has completed her intermediate
examination and respondent no.2 is struggling financially
for maintaining herself and her daughters by taking loans
and from Rs.6,000/- per month in the house rent.
Revisionist is a retired J.C.O. in the Indian Army and gets
Rs.50,000/- per month pension. He also earns Rs.10,000/-
2025:UHC:6126
per month from 9 bighas of agricultural land. Furthermore,
he also owns three plots in Rudrapur. Thus, respondent
no.2 sought Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance for
herself and Rs.20,000 per month for maintenance of
respondent nos.3 & 4. On the said application, respondent-
husband filed his objection. The trial court by reason of
order dated 14.06.2023 has allowed the application and
directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of
Rs.18,000/- per month to the respondent no.2-wife,
Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent no.3 and Rs.6,000/-
per month to respondent no.4 as stated in para 1 of this
judgment. Assailing the said order, revisionist-husband has
come before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued
that trial court has awarded the amount of maintenance
without considering the facts available on record. He
further submits that the trial court has also ignored this
aspect that respondent no.2 could not prove any valid and
cogent reason to desert her husband i.e. revisionist and
solely rely on the oral statements of respondent no.2.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondents supported the order passed by trial court and
argued that after appreciating the financial capacity of the
revisionist-husband, his actual income and reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance, the learned Family
Court awarded the maintenance.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the entire material available on record.
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the
revisionist/husband that there is no reason for wife to stay
away with the company of revisionist-husband, is factually
incorrect. There is ample evidence on record which proved
the cruelty committed by revisionist-husband family-
2025:UHC:6126
members upon respondent-wife and daughters to the
extent of attempting sexual assault upon respondent-wife
by her brother-in-law. This is sufficient enough reason for
her to leave the husband when he is not supportive and
protective.
7. It is admitted case that respondent-husband is a
retired J.C.O in Indian Army and he is getting pension of
Rs.42,020/- per month. He also owns 06 bighas of
agricultural land. Furthermore, respondent no.3-Km. Jyoti
awarded Rs.4,000/- per month, but only from the date of
application was filed until 12.07.2018. This is because she
started job on 12.07.2018 and earns Rs.29,814/- per
month. After 12.07.2018, she is no longer entitled for
maintenance as she began a job and has a regular income.
Respondent no.4- Km. Tanuja has awarded Rs.6,000/- per
month as permanent maintenance till she gets married
because she is still a student and has no independent
source of income.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the opinion of this Court, the interest of justice
would be met, if an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is
awarded to respondent no.2 as maintenance and
Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent no.4 as permanent
maintenance.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is
allowed in part. The judgment and order dated 14.06.2023
passed by Judge, Family Court-I, Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.158 of
2016, Smt. Rajeshwari Joshi & others vs. Shri Radheshyam
Joshi, is modified to the extent that respondent no.2-wife
shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as
maintenance revisionist-husband from the date of
presentation of application and respondent no.4-Km.
2025:UHC:6126
Tanuja shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs.6,000/- per
month as permanent maintenance till she gets married.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
15.07.2025
AK
