Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Arvind on 13 October, 2025
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR No. 667 of 2025
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. G. C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present criminal revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court
Act r/w Section 438/442 of BNSS is moved on behalf of the revisionist
to set-aside the judgment and order dated 19.07.2025 passed by learned
Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar
in Case No.366 of 2019, titled as "Ranjeeta and Another vs. Arvind
Saini", filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby the learned court
below had directed the revisionist to pay a sum of `3,000/- per month to
the Opposite Party No.2 and an amount of `2,000/- per month to the
Opposite Party No.3, i.e. total to the tune of `5,000/- to the Opposite
Party Nos. 2 & 3 till the date of order and further from the date of order
i.e. 19.07.2025 the revisionist shall pay `5,000/- to the Opposite party
No.3 through her maternal uncle (Mama).
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/husband makes a submission
that the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2025 passed by
learned Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Roorkee, District
Haridwar in Case No.366 of 2019 is based on surmises and conjectures;
the learned court below without any proof of income of the Revisionist
and without understanding the liabilities of the Revisionist had passed
the order dated 19.07.2025 directing to pay `5,000/- per month to the
Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 without acknowledging the fact that the
Opposite Party No.2 is no more and the Revisionist has no problem
taking their minor daughter i.e. Opposite Party No.3 in his custody in
order to maintain her.
5. He further submits that it is a settled principle of law that
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a personal right, which
extinguishes upon the death of Opposite Party No.2 is not legally tenable
and cannot be enforced against the Revisionist.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on
behalf of the Revisionist, interference is being called for in the matter.
7. Admit.
8. Issue notice to the Respondent no.2 through her guardian,
returnable within two weeks. Steps to be taken within one week.
9. Objections, if any, to be filed by the Respondents within a period
of three weeks.
10. List this matter on 15.12.2025.
11. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order
dated 19.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-I,
Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No.366 of 2019, titled
as "Ranjeeta and Another vs. Arvind Saini", filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., shall remain stayed, subject to the condition that the Revisionist
shall pay half of the interim maintenance as awarded by the learned
Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar
in Case No.366 of 2019, per month to the Opposite Party No.3 through
her guardian.
12. It is further directed that till the other party makes an appearance
before this Court, the arrears of maintenance shall remain stayed against
the revisionist.
13. Stay Application (IA No.01 of 2025) stands disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
13.10.2025
Akash
