Uttarakhand High Court
4 November vs Hemlata Chauhan on 4 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:9743
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 709 of 2025
04 November, 2025
Sanjay Kumar
--Revisionist
Versus
Hemlata Chauhan
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Deep Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist (appeared
through V.C.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present criminal revision,
revisionist has put to challenge the order dated
18.09.2025, passed by learned Judge Family Court,
Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No.92 of 2025, Smt.
Hemlata Chauhan vs. Sanjay Kumar, under Section 144
of BNSS, whereby the application for interim
maintenance preferred by the respondent for her
daughter has been allowed and directed the revisionist to
pay a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for his
daughter-Km. Kevina to the respondent form the date of
interim maintenance application.
2. Brief Facts of the case are that the revisionist
(husband) filed the present revision against the order
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Pithoragarh.
The respondent (wife) had filed an application for interim
maintenance, Paper No. 7A/1, before the said court. In
the application, it was stated that the respondent-wife
had filed a petition seeking maintenance for her minor
daughter, Km. Kevina Chauhan. The respondent-wife is
employed as a teacher; however, she has used her
personal savings to repay the bank loan taken by the
2025:UHC:9743
revisionist-husband and is also repaying the amount
borrowed from relatives for the construction of their
house from her monthly salary. Due to her poor health,
she requires funds for her medical treatment, which
makes it difficult for her to adequately support and
educate her minor daughter. Owing to financial
constraints, the respondent-wife is unable to meet the
expenses of litigation and the upbringing of her daughter.
3. It was further stated in the application that the
revisionist-husband is a man of means. He is a former
BSF soldier receiving a pension of Rs. 35,000 per month.
In addition, he resides in Village Borabunga, where he
earns approximately Rs.25,000 per month through
farming, and by rearing cows, buffaloes, goats, and
poultry. He also earns profits from share market
investments.
4. Thereafter, the learned Family Judge partly
allowed the respondent-wife's application and directed
the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 per
month towards the maintenance of the minor daughter,
Km. Kevina Chauhan, to the respondent-wife by the 10th
day of each month, with effect from the date of filing of
the application, i.e., 17.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the
said order, the revisionist has approached this Court.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the
revisionist that the impugned order and judgment are
based on conjecture and surmise, having been passed
contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. He
further contends that the revisionist obtained a house
loan in 2011 and constructed a house at Cinema Line,
Pithoragarh, and that he has been regularly paying an
EMI of Rs.18,300/- per month towards the said loan. He
2025:UHC:9743
also submits that the interim maintenance granted
against the revisionist is excessive and unsustainable in
the eyes of law, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of
the impugned order as well as the material available on
record, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or
impropriety in the order passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Pithoragarh. The Family Court has rightly
appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and
has passed a reasoned order while granting interim
maintenance for the minor daughter, keeping in view the
income of the revisionist and the financial needs of the
child. The amount awarded cannot be said to be
excessive or arbitrary in any manner. Moreover, it is an
interim maintenance. The rights of parties are yet to be
adjudicated.
7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned order does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction. The criminal revision is,
therefore, dismissed in-limine. The revisionist shall
continue to pay the interim maintenance to the
respondent-wife for the minor daughter as directed by
the learned Family Court.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
04.11.2025
AK
