Uttarakhand High Court
Surendra Bisht vs Km. Sneha Alias Shivnaya on 24 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision Petition No.193 of 2025
Surendra Bisht .........Revisionist
Versus
Km. Sneha alias Shivnaya .........Respondent
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vishesh Srivastav, proxy counsel for Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This revision preferred under Section 438 of the
BNSS, 2023 is directed against the order dated 21.03.2025
passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun
in Criminal Case No.354 of 2024, Sneha vs. Surrendra,
whereby, the application Paper No.19A moved by the
respondent-wife on behalf of minor daughter was partly
allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay interim
maintenance to the respondent (minor girl child) at the rate of
Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of presentation of the
application i.e. 25.10.2024.
2. The facts in nutshell are that an application Paper
No.19A was moved by the respondent through her natural
guardian mother stating therein that mother was married with
the revisionist on 14.04.2011 and on 11.01.2024, their
marriage has been dissolved and at present, the respondent
who is the mother of minor Km. Sneha has not solemnized
second marriage. The revisionist is posted as the Manager in
a Health Company and also does the work of LIC agent from
where he gets a monthly income of Rs.60,000/-. Accordingly,
an interim maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- was demanded. The
revisionist filed his objection to the said application in which
he stated that the marriage between the parties has been
dissolved. The decree of divorce has been passed by the
court on the basis of mutual compromise dated 11.01.2024.
As per the conditions of the divorce, all the stridhan had been
returned to the respondent and the respondent had given an
affidavit before the court that she would not file any kind of
case for maintenance either for herself or her daughter.
Hence, the prayer to reject the application has been made.
3. The learned trial court has recorded the findings
that the revisionist gets monthly income of Rs.60,000/-
besides, Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- from daily business. In
his written statement, he did not state any fact about his
income. The trial court on the basis of the authority of Delhi
High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that, even if, a divorce takes place between the parties then
also the minor child is entitled to get the maintenance. The
child was stated to have been residing with her mother
(respondent) and the court has recorded the finding that the
duty to maintain the child is upon the revisionist. Further,
any settlement between applicant-husband and respondent-
wife cannot be made in respect of rights of minor child.
4. In these circumstances, the court rightly awarded
an interim maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month for the
maintenance of daughter of respondent-wife.
5. In my opinion, there is no illegality or perversity in
the impugned judgment nor any ground is made out to interfere
with the said finding. The revision lacks merit and the same is
dismissed at the threshold.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
24.06.2025
Ravi
