Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Mandeep Kaur And Others on 21 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7406
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 460 of 2022
21st August, 2025
Sukhdev Singh ..........Revisionist
Versus
Mandeep Kaur and Others .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Yogesh Pant, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
The present criminal revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order dated
07.05.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2021 “Sukhdev
Singh Vs. Mandeep Kaur and Others”, whereby the
appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed,
affirming the judgment and order dated 23.03.2021
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge
(S.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Misc. Criminal Case No. 51 of 2018 “Mandeep Kaur
and Others Vs. Sukhdev Singh“. By the said order, the
case filed by the respondents under the provisions of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (for short, “the D.V. Act“) was allowed and the
revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of
₹10,000/- per month to the respondents.
2. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of
the present revision, are that the matter arises out of
1
2025:UHC:7406
matrimonial discord between the revisionist and
respondent no.1, who are husband and wife
respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on
24.06.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals and two
children, one son and one daughter, were born out of
the wedlock. It is alleged that since the year 2017, the
revisionist and his family members subjected
respondent no.1 to cruelty and physical assault, due
to which she started residing separately along with
the children. Respondent no.1 filed an application
before the trial court seeking protection orders and
maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month. The learned
trial court, vide judgment dated 23.03.2021, partly
allowed the application by restraining the revisionist
from committing any mental, emotional or economic
violence against the respondents and directed him to
pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month. The
criminal appeal filed against the said order was
dismissed, hence this revision. Hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
contended that both the courts below erred in law in
fixing the quantum of maintenance. It is submitted
that the maintenance was awarded on the basis of
presumption without appreciating the actual salary
slips of the revisionist. The income assessed by the
courts below is contrary to record, as his salary was
never to the extent presumed. Thus, the maintenance
fixed is excessive and unsustainable. He would
further submit that respondent no.1 left the
matrimonial home of her own volition despite the
willingness of the revisionist to reside with her; that,
2
2025:UHC:7406
no complaint of domestic violence was ever made
prior to the filing of the present proceedings, thereby
indicating that the allegations are concocted.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the revisionist is owner of
four bighas of agricultural land and was employed as
a Conductor in Uttarakhand Roadways, earning
around ₹30,000/- per month. It is further submitted
that respondent no.1 has to maintain two growing
children aged 8 and 11 years, who require
educational, medical and other expenses, and hence
the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial
court is justified.
5. To this, learned counsel for the revisionist,
however, pointed out that the revisionist is suffering
from low grade glioma, on account of which he is
unable to continue his duties as Conductor in
Uttarakhand Roadways. Presently, he is working at a
grocery shop earning only about ₹7,000/- per month.
It was contended that in these circumstances, he is
financially incapable of paying ₹10,000/- per month
as directed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
7. This Court had earlier orally directed the
revisionist to produce his salary slips from
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. The same have
been filed.
8. A perusal of the pay slips reveals that
between August 2017 and April 2022, the maximum
3
2025:UHC:7406
income of the revisionist was ₹14,173/- per month.
Even if income from four bighas of agricultural land
is taken into account, his monthly income cannot be
assessed at ₹30,000/-. It is apparent that the trial
court, on mere presumptions, fixed the quantum of
maintenance on the higher side. Considering also
that the revisionist is presently suffering from a
serious medical condition and working in a grocery
shop earning ₹7,000/- per month, the amount of
₹10,000/- directed as maintenance is beyond his
financial capacity.
9. It is well settled that a husband is under a
legal obligation to maintain his wife and children
born out of the wedlock. However, the quantum of
maintenance must be reasonable, commensurate
with the husband’s actual income and paying
capacity, and not based on presumptions or inflated
assessments. In the case of Kiran Jyot Maini v.
Anish Pramod Patel (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1724,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that
calculating maintenance must be grounded in the
husband’s real financial capacity, and must not be
“penalizing,” nor based on presumptions.
10. On a consideration of the orders passed by
the courts below, this Court finds that the quantum
of maintenance was fixed without proper appreciation
of the material on record. Therefore, interference is
warranted.
11. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly
allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.03.2021
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge
4
2025:UHC:7406
(S.D.), Kashipur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 51 of
2018 and the judgment and order dated 07.05.2022
passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Kashipur in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2021 are
modified to the extent that the revisionist shall pay
maintenance of ₹6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only)
per month to the respondents. The said maintenance
shall be payable from the date of filing of the
application under the D.V. Act before the trial court.
The arrears shall be cleared within a period of three
months from today. The monthly maintenance shall
be paid on or before the 10th day of each English
calendar month directly into the bank account of
respondent no.1.
12. Respondent no.1 is directed to furnish her
bank account details, including the name of the
account holder, account number, name of the bank,
branch name and IFSC code, to the revisionist on
affidavit or through electronic communication, to
enable direct deposit of the maintenance amount.
13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to
the court concerned for information and necessary
compliance.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
21.08.2025.
Mamta
5