Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 18 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.177 of 2020
18th September, 2025
Mohammad Ullah Karimi and others ........Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the revisionists.
Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Deepa Arya, learned counsel for respondent no.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
This Criminal Revision has been filed by the
revisionists challenging the judgment and order dated
16.01.2020 passed by First Additional Session Judge,
Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2019, 'Smt. Amina
Tabassum Karimi Vs. State and others, whereby the
Appellate Court allowed the appeal and respondent nos.2
and 3/revisionist nos.1 & 2 herein, were directed to pay
Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent no.2 herein as
maintenance.
2025:UHC:8375
2. Learned counsel for the revisionists would
submit that respondent no.2 filed an application before
the Protection Officer against her real brother, sister and
brother-in-law stating therein that she is a divorcee and
residing in her parental house for last 17 years; that, now
all these five persons have thrown her out from her
parental house and have also forcefully withdrawn Rs.3
lakhs from her bank account; that, the Protection Officer
prepared a report in Form-II and forwarded it to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nainital on 18.08.2017; that, after
recording the statements of the parties, learned CJM
dismissed the application under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
("the Act") on 28.02.2019. Thereafter, against the
dismissal order, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal
under Section 29 of the Act before the Session Judge,
Nainital, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.39
of 2019; that, the appeal was allowed by the First
Additional Session Judge, Nainital vide its judgment and
order dated 16.01.2020, by which revisionist nos.1 and 2
were directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to
respondent no.2, as maintenance. Furthermore, the
Appellate Court directed the revisionists to permit
Respondent No. 2 to reside at Noorani House, Popular
2025:UHC:8375
Compound, Mallital, Nainital, and further restrained them
from interfering with her right of residence at the said
premises.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists would
further submit that the Appellant Court has passed the
judgment on the basis of presumption and surmises that
too without application of mind; that, Appellate Court
has given the finding regarding Domestic Violence in
paragraph no.13, which is based on an incident, which
was not in the application filed by respondent no.2,
therefore, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court
regarding Domestic Violence is perverse and illegal. The
revisionists, being the brothers of respondent no. 2, are
not liable to pay maintenance to her under Section 125
Cr.P.C. or under any other law, including Muslim
Personal Law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that respondent no. 2 has neither pleaded nor
filed any document to substantiate her claim that she is
entitled to seek maintenance from her brothers.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the revisionists placed reliance upon the judgment
2025:UHC:8375
rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case
of 'Naimullah Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors,
reported in (2024) 1 Crimes (HC) 309. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-
"..................................................................
........................
This part of the provision of law says that not
only the aggrieved persons but also her
children, if any, may claim maintenance 'under'
and 'in addition' to order of maintenance
under section 125 Cr.P.C. And further that the
maintenance can be claimed under or in
addition to any other law for the time being in
force. The way provision has been worded,
gives a clear indication that section 12 of the DV
Act is essentially a procedural law, which can
be resorted to by any aggrieved person, who
draws a substantive right for maintenance from
any other law, whether under section
125 Cr.P.C. or personal law applicable to the
parties or any other law for the time being in
force. Thus law is quite clear to the extent that
maintenance can be claimed under any law
which provides for the same. Further that even
if maintenance has already been granted under
one law, the aggrieved person can ask for
monetary relief for maintenance under any
other law in addition, under the provisions of
the DV Act. Thus this law seeks to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings. Now a question may
arise that when rights have been provided for
elsewhere, why such enactment was needed at
all? In my opinion the legislature has, keeping
up with the objective of this enactment, has cut
down the procedural formalities and facilitated
grant of quicker reliefs.
Section 20(2) of the DV Act says that the
monetary relief granted under this section shall
be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent
with the standard of living to which the
aggrieved person is accustomed. The scope for
grant of particular kind of monetary relief that is
2025:UHC:8375
"maintenance" is further widened in section
20(3) of the DV Act which says that an
appropriate lump-sum may be ordered to be
paid as maintenance in the nature of
circumstances of a particular case. In my
opinion, if the provisions of section 20(1)(d) of
the DV Act are interpreted in harmony with
rights given to an aggrieved person under any
other law, it appears that the substantive right
to receive maintenance may emanate from other
laws, however quick and shorter procedure to
obtain the same, has been provided in the
the DV Act, 2005. The rights which the parties
may have under other laws whether civil or
criminal, have been given a cutting edge by the
Act. In my view, this explains the use of words
"more effective protection to women" in the
foreword which described the reasons behind
this enactment."
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
no.2 would submit that as per Muslim Law, respondent
no.2 is entitled 1/4 share of the property of her brothers.
7. After hearing the leaned counsel for the parties
and after perusing the record, respondent no. 2 has
failed to establish by any documentary evidence that the
revisionists are bound to maintain her or provide her
residence, either under the provisions of the DV Act,
Section 125 Cr.P.C., or the Personal Law governing the
parties. Therefore, the judgment and order dated
16.01.2020 passed by First Additional Session Judge,
Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2019, 'Smt. Amina
Tabassum Karimi Vs. State and others cannot be
2025:UHC:8375
sustained and is hereby set aside. Respondent no. 2 shall
be at liberty to pursue her claim of share before the
appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
18.09.2025
BS
BALWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17
c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
T SINGH
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB5
53DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.09.22 12:11:19 +05'30'
