Vineet Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 907 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vineet Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 February, 2026

                                                                              2026:UHC:761

                                                      Judgment Pronounced on: 11.02.2026
                                                        Judgment Reserved on: 18.11.2025


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                         Criminal Revision No. 558 of 2024

Vineet Sharma                                                          ......Revisionist

                                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                                       .....Respondents

Presence: Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the Revisionist.
             Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Vikas
             Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
             Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.


Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1.     This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 19(4) of
the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the Revisionist, Vineet Sharma,
assailing the judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case
No.285 of 2019, titled Monika Dhiman and Another v. Vineet Sharma.

2.     By the impugned order, the learned Family Court allowed an
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and directed the Revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 per month as
maintenance to Respondent No. 2 (wife) and Respondent No. 3 (minor
child). The Revisionist challenges the legality, correctness, and
propriety of the said order on grounds relating to maintainability,
appreciation of evidence, earning capacity of the parties, and
applicability of Section 125(4) CrPC.




                                                                                           1
Criminal Revision No.558 of 2024-----Vineet Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                                             Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                               2026:UHC:761

3.     The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No. 2 was
solemnized on 16.11.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and
ceremonies. From the said wedlock, a male child, Respondent No. 3,
was born.


4.     After marriage, matrimonial discord arose between the parties.
The record reflects that in the year 2018, Respondent No. 2 left the
matrimonial home and initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In response,
the Revisionist instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.



5.     Subsequently, efforts at reconciliation were made and the parties
arrived at a settlement. In pursuance thereof, the proceedings under the
Domestic Violence Act were disposed of, and the application under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was withdrawn, with Respondent
No. 2 agreeing to resume cohabitation at the matrimonial home.


6.     However, on 21.04.2019, Respondent No. 2 once again left the
matrimonial home along with the minor child. On the same date, an FIR
bearing No. 507 of 2019 was lodged at Police Station Patel Nagar,
Dehradun against the Revisionist and his family members. Since then,
the parties have been living separately.


7.     Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 instituted an application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family
Court, Dehradun, seeking maintenance for herself and for the minor
child, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 285 of 2019.



                                                                                          2
Criminal Revision No.558 of 2024-----Vineet Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                                             Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                               2026:UHC:761

8.     The said application was contested by the Revisionist. Upon
consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the
learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, by judgment and
order dated 12.07.2024, allowed the application and directed the
Revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month towards
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.


9.     Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Revisionist
has approached this Court by way of the present criminal revision.

10.    Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11.    Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned
order suffers from material illegality and perversity inasmuch as the
learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on
record relating to the earning capacity of the parties. It was contended
that the Revisionist is earning a meagre income and that the direction to
pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month virtually amounts to
awarding the entirety of his income as maintenance, leaving him
without any means of subsistence.


12.    It was further urged that Respondent No. 2 is a well-educated and
physically able person, holding a professional qualification and having
prior work experience, and therefore is capable of maintaining herself.
Learned counsel submitted that the Family Court ignored material
evidence demonstrating her capacity to earn and erred in fastening the
entire financial liability upon the Revisionist without recording any
cogent finding as to his actual income.




                                                                                          3
Criminal Revision No.558 of 2024-----Vineet Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                                             Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                               2026:UHC:761

13.    Learned counsel for the Revisionist also contended that
Respondent No. 2 had voluntarily withdrawn from the matrimonial
home without sufficient cause and continues to live separately despite
repeated efforts at reconciliation. On this premise, it was submitted that
the bar contained under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 squarely applies, disentitling Respondent No. 2 from
claiming maintenance. Accordingly, interference in revision was
sought.


14.    Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and
Respondent No. 3 supported the impugned order and submitted that the
learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after due
consideration of the pleadings and evidence. It was contended that
Respondent No. 2 has no independent source of income and is residing
separately on account of matrimonial cruelty and neglect, which stands
duly reflected from the record.


15.    Learned counsel further submitted that the primary consideration
under Section 125 CrPC is prevention of vagrancy and destitution,
particularly of a wife and minor child. It was argued that the obligation
of the husband to maintain his wife and child is statutory in nature and
cannot be avoided on speculative assertions regarding her earning
capacity, especially when no concrete evidence of actual income has
been produced.


16.    It was lastly submitted that Respondent No. 3, being a minor
child, is wholly dependent upon the Revisionist, and the quantum of
maintenance awarded is neither excessive nor unreasonable considering
the rising cost of living. Learned counsel contended that no


                                                                                          4
Criminal Revision No.558 of 2024-----Vineet Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                                             Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                               2026:UHC:761

jurisdictional error or perversity is made out warranting interference in
revisional jurisdiction, and the revision deserves dismissal.


17.    This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and has perused the record, including the
impugned judgment. The scope of interference in revision against an
order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
limited. However, where the order discloses non-consideration of
relevant material or results in manifest inequity, revisional interference
is warranted.


18.    Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and
intended to prevent destitution. The determination of maintenance must
strike a balance between the needs of the claimant and the paying
capacity of the person against whom the order is made. The jurisdiction
is remedial and not punitive.


19.    Insofar as Respondent No. 3 is concerned, being a minor child,
the obligation of the Revisionist to provide maintenance is absolute,
subject to his means. The entitlement of the minor child to maintenance
does not depend upon the matrimonial disputes between the parties.


20.    With respect to Respondent No. 2, the record indicates that she is
educated and has had prior work experience. While mere educational
qualification does not disentitle a wife from maintenance, the capacity
to earn is a relevant consideration while determining the quantum. The
impugned order does not reflect adequate consideration of this aspect.




                                                                                          5
Criminal Revision No.558 of 2024-----Vineet Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                                             Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                               2026:UHC:761

21.    The material on record further indicates that the income of the
Revisionist is modest. The impugned order does not contain a clear
assessment of his actual earning capacity, nor does it demonstrate a
nexus between such capacity and the quantum of maintenance awarded.
An order directing payment of maintenance must not be such as to
render the payer incapable of sustaining himself.

22.    The plea raised by the Revisionist regarding Respondent No. 2
living separately without sufficient cause, attracting the bar under
Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., also required consideration. The impugned
order does not reflect a clear finding on this issue, despite the same
having been specifically raised.


23.    In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that while the
entitlement of Respondent No.3 to maintenance warrants no
interference, the impugned order suffers from inadequate consideration
of relevant factors insofar as Respondent No. 2 and the quantum of
maintenance are concerned.

                                         ORDER

24. The Criminal Revision is partly allowed.

25. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 285 of 2019 is affirmed insofar as it grants maintenance to Respondent No. 3, the minor child.

26. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it grants maintenance to Respondent No. 2. The matter is remitted to the learned Family Court, Dehradun for fresh determination of entitlement and

Criminal Revision No.558 of 2024-----Vineet Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Ashish Naithani J.

2026:UHC:761

quantum of maintenance, if any, payable to Respondent No. 2, in accordance with law.

27. The maintenance payable to Respondent No. 3 shall continue as directed.

Ashish Naithani, J.

11.02.2026 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2026.02.11 17:03:36 +05'30'

Criminal Revision No.558 of 2024-----Vineet Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Ashish Naithani J.