Uttarakhand High Court
8 August vs Smt. Lajji Devi on 18 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7258
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 265 of 2024
18 August, 2025
Mahendra Prasad Dwivedi -------------Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Lajji Devi -----------Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M S Bhandari, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. D C S Rawat, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
1. This Criminal Revision preferred under Section
397/407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed
against the judgment dated 15.02.2024, passed by learned
Family Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 120 of 2022 (Smt. Lajji Devi vs. Mahendra Prasad
Dwivedi.
2. Facts in brief are that the marriage of the parties
to the matrimony was solemnized on 19.10.1996 as per
Hindu rituals. Out of the said marriage, three children were
born. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist used to commit
mar-peet and used abusive language towards the respondent
and exert pressure upon her to bring money from her
parents. The revisionist even did not discharge his family
responsibilities nor did he give money for maintenance of
children.
3. On 04.01.2013, revisionist preferred matrimonial suit
no. 05 of 2013 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
1
2025:UHC:7258
Act, which was decided ex parte on 30th October, 2021. The
revisionist concealing the fact that respondent-wife was
staying in her matrimonial house and discharged all the
duties got the suit decreed. On 17th May, 2022 the
respondent came to know about the fact that the revisionist
has taken divorce by fraud thereafter, she moved an
application to set aside the ex parte decree in the Court and
the court after hearing the parties vide Judgment dated 25th
August, 2022 restored the suit by setting aside the ex parte
Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2021 on the cost of
Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance in the Court of Family
Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal. The revisionist is working as
Lecturer in Education Department, from where, he gets
salary of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, hence the prayer to
provide maintenance @ 50,000/- per month was made by the
respondent-wife.
4. Revisionist-husband filed objection to the
application filed by the respondent-wife, wherein, he
admitted the fact of marriage and born of three children,
however, he denied most of the contents of the claim petition.
The Family Court by its detailed judgment dated 15th
February, 2024 has allowed the application moved by the
respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the
revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as
maintenance by 7th of each month from the date of
presentation of the Application, i.e. 10.10.2022. Challenging
the said judgment, the revisionist has preferred the present
revision.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the entire material available on record.
6. Insofar as, the income of the revisionist is
2
2025:UHC:7258
concerned, it is an admitted fact that he is working as
Lecturer in the Education department of the State. His salary
slip has been bought on record, wherein, his monthly salary
has been shown to be Rs.1,00,920/-. Although, he had
shown certain deductions in the pay slip but those were the
savings made by him, benefits whereof, were payable to the
revisionist only. The revisionist produced his annual salary
ship statement for nine months, wherein his total income
was shown as Rs.9,67,830/-. After adding salary of
remaining three months pay, i.e., Rs. 3,02,760/- the annual
salary of the revisionist come to Rs. 12,70,099/-. In the light
of the above and considering the other admissible
deductions, Court worked out the monthly salary of Rs.
80,000/- of the revisionist.
7. In addition to this, the respondent-wife also stated
that the revisionist was having three tenants who used to
pay monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/-. Moreover, certain other
amounts were shown to be deposited in the account of the
revisionist. In all, the Court reached to the conclusion that
the monthly income of the revisionist is Rs. 85,000/- per
month.
8. In view of the above discussion and keeping in
mind the financial status of the revisionist and also the fact
that the respondent-wife is staying in the house of revisionist
and all the expenses are incurred by him only, the Court
awarded the maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month to the
revisionist-wife against the respondent.
9. I have carefully gone through the impugned
judgment and order and I find no ground of interference. The
amount of maintenance cannot be said to be exorbitant in
any manner whatsoever.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is devoid of
3
2025:UHC:7258
any merit the same is hereby dismissed. The interim order
dated 2nd May, 2025 is hereby vacated. Inform the court
below.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.08.2025
Kaushal
4