[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 11 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1557
Judgment Reserved on: 05.01.2026
Judgment Pronounced on: 11.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023
Deepak Kumar ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Another .....Respondent
Presence: Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the Revisionist.
Mr. G.C. Joshi, Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections
397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act
challenging the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Misc.
Criminal Case No.210 of 2022 titled "Aradhya Vs. Deepak Kumar" under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court allowed the
interim maintenance application filed on behalf of respondent no. 2
(minor child) and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of ₹8,000/- per
month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
3. The marriage between the revisionist and the mother of respondent
no. 2 was solemnized on 08.02.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals.
Out of the wedlock, a female child, namely respondent no. 2, was born.
1
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023, Deepak Kumar Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1557
4. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties. The mother of the
minor child moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the
Family Court, Roorkee seeking maintenance for the minor child. Along
with the main petition, an application for interim maintenance was also
filed.
5. The revisionist filed his written statement and objections to the
interim maintenance application. After hearing the parties, the learned
Family Court passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance of
₹8,000/- per month in favour of the minor child, payable from the date of
the application.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has
been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order
is illegal, perverse and passed without proper appreciation of the material
available on record.
8. It is contended that both the revisionist and the mother of the minor
child are serving in government employment. The revisionist is serving in
CRPF, whereas the mother of the child is serving in CISF. Therefore, the
learned Family Court erred in fastening the entire liability of maintenance
of the child upon the revisionist alone.
9. It is further submitted that the mother of respondent no. 2 did not
place on record complete details of her income nor annexed her salary
slips, thereby concealing material facts. Despite such concealment, the
learned Court below proceeded to fix interim maintenance.
2
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023, Deepak Kumar Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1557
10. Learned counsel argues that the revisionist is drawing a gross salary
of approximately ₹63,702/- per month, out of which substantial
deductions are made towards loan instalments. It is submitted that:
o ₹6,454/- and ₹18,640/- are deducted towards loan repayments;
o Approximately ₹4,000/- is spent towards personal expenses
and food;
o The revisionist is also responsible for maintaining his aged
parents and younger siblings.
11. It is contended that the learned Court below did not properly
consider the financial liabilities of the revisionist while determining the
quantum of interim maintenance.
12. It is also argued that the interim maintenance has been awarded
from the date of the application without assigning adequate reasons,
though there was no deliberate delay attributable to the revisionist in
contesting the proceedings.
13. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is non-speaking
and based on conjectures and surmises and therefore liable to be set aside.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the
impugned order and submits that the learned Family Court has passed the
order after considering the material available on record.
3
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023, Deepak Kumar Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1557
15. It is contended that the minor child is legally entitled to
maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the father
cannot shirk his statutory obligation.
16. It is further submitted that the revisionist is a permanent government
employee and earning a stable income; therefore, the quantum of ₹8,000/-
per month awarded as interim maintenance for the minor child is
reasonable and justified.
17. Learned counsel argues that the responsibility of maintaining the
minor child primarily lies upon the father and the income of the mother
does not absolve him of his obligation.
18. It is also contended that the learned Family Court has exercised its
discretion judiciously and no illegality or perversity is made out
warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
19. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
20. The present revision is directed against an order whereby the
learned Family Court has allowed the interim maintenance application
filed on behalf of the minor child and directed the revisionist to pay
₹8,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C.
21. At the outset, it is not disputed that respondent no.2 is the minor
daughter born out of the wedlock between the revisionist and her mother.
The paternity of the child is admitted. Therefore, the statutory obligation
4
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023, Deepak Kumar Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1557
of the father to maintain his minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
absolute, subject to proof of means and neglect.
22. The principal challenge raised by the revisionist is two folds:
(i) that both parents are in government service and therefore the
entire liability of maintenance ought not to have been placed upon
him; and
(ii) that the amount of ₹8,000/- per month is excessive in view of his
financial liabilities and deductions.
23. It is settled that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation
intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The provision has to be
interpreted liberally in favour of dependents. A minor child is entitled to
be maintained in a manner commensurate with the status of the parents.
24. The contention that the mother is also earning does not ipso facto
absolve the father of his statutory obligation. The father cannot avoid his
responsibility merely because the mother is employed. However, it is
equally true that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the Court must
consider the financial capacity of both parents so that the burden is fair
and reasonable.
25. From the record, it appears that the revisionist is serving in CRPF
and is drawing a gross monthly salary of approximately ₹63,000/- (as
disclosed in his affidavit). It has been contended that deductions towards
loan instalments and other liabilities substantially reduce his net take-
home salary.
5
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023, Deepak Kumar Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1557
26. However, it is well settled that voluntary liabilities such as loan
repayments cannot override the paramount right of a minor child to
maintenance. Financial commitments undertaken by a parent cannot be
cited as a ground to deny or reduce legitimate maintenance, unless the
liabilities are shown to be unavoidable and compelling.
27. The revisionist has also contended that he has aged parents and
siblings to support. While such responsibilities cannot be ignored
altogether, they do not eclipse the statutory obligation towards a minor
child. The duty to maintain a minor child stands on a higher pedestal.
28. The learned Family Court has assessed the material placed before it
and has exercised its discretion in awarding ₹8,000/- per month as interim
maintenance. Considering present inflation, rising cost of living,
educational expenses, nutritional requirements and medical needs of a
growing child, the said amount cannot be termed as excessive or arbitrary.
29. The argument that maintenance ought not to have been granted from
the date of application also does not impress this Court. The discretion to
grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of
order is statutorily vested in the Court. In the present case, no perversity
or misapplication of law has been demonstrated in granting maintenance
from the date of application.
30. It is trite that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections
397/401 Cr.P.C. is supervisory and not appellate. This Court does not sit
as a Court of re-appreciation of evidence unless there is manifest
illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross perversity in the order impugned.
6
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023, Deepak Kumar Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1557
31. The impugned order reflects that the learned Family Court
considered the pleadings and income details available on record before
arriving at its conclusion. The order cannot be said to be arbitrary,
capricious or without application of mind.
32. Interim maintenance is, by its very nature, provisional and subject to
final adjudication upon full evidence. The revisionist will have adequate
opportunity during trial to establish his contentions regarding income,
liabilities and proportionate responsibility of the mother.
33. In the considered opinion of this Court, no such patent illegality,
material irregularity or perversity is made out which would justify
interference in revisional jurisdiction.
ORDER
34. For the reasons recorded above, the Criminal Revision lacks merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
35. The impugned order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Misc.
Criminal Case No. 210 of 2022 is hereby affirmed.
36. The revisionist shall continue to pay interim maintenance of
₹8,000/- per month to respondent no.2 in terms of the impugned order.
37. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
38. No order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
11.03.2026
Arti
Criminal Revision No.686 of 2023, Deepak Kumar Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
