HARITIMA JOSHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010177952019

2026:UHC:8026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

CRLR/638/2019


Haritima Joshi
--Revisionist

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the
revisionists.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Bharat Tewari,
Advocates for respondent no.2.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred
by the revisionist challenging the judgment and
order dated 23.09.2019 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Misc.
Criminal Case No.327 of 2015, whereby the
application preferred by revisionist nos.1 and 2
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the
respondent no.2 was directed to pay maintenance
at the rate of ₹ 12,500/- per month each to
revisionist nos.1 and 2.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that
the marriage between the revisionist and
respondent no.2 was solemnized on 17.02.2002.
Out of the said wedlock, a son was born on
07.04.2003, who was subsequently given in
adoption to the elder brother of respondent no.2.
Thereafter, a daughter was born to the parties in
the year 2005, who is revisionist no.2 herein.
Subsequently, matrimonial discord arose between
the parties, on account of which revisionist, along
with her minor daughter, was constrained to
leave her matrimonial home on 29.05.2014. Since
then, revisionists have been residing separately
from the respondent no.2. Alleging that the
respondent no.2 had neglected and refused to

UKHC010177952019

2026:UHC:8026
maintain them and had failed to provide them
with the means of subsistence, revisionists
instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
in the year 2015. Learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dehradun, after considering the
material available on record, allowed the
application vide judgment and order dated
23.09.2019 and awarded maintenance at the rate
of ₹ 12,500/- per month each to the revisionist
nos.1 & 2 from the date of the judgment.
Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance so
awarded, the present Criminal Revision has been
preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has
failed to properly appreciate the actual earning
capacity and financial position of the revisionist
while determining the quantum of maintenance.
It is contended that the Income Tax Returns
placed on record during the pendency of the
revision disclose that the respondent no.2 had an
average annual income of approximately
₹ 20,00,000/- during the financial years 2018-
2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. It is further
submitted that the respondent no.2 has no
substantial liability or dependent obligation
which would materially impair his capacity to pay
a reasonable amount of maintenance. Learned
counsel, therefore, submits that, having regard to
the income and financial capacity of the
respondent no.2, the amount of ₹ 12,500/- per
month awarded to each of revisionist nos.1 and 2
is inadequate and warrants enhancement.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 submits that the amount
awarded by learned Family Court is just and
reasonable and that the revisionist no.1 has
sufficient means to maintain herself.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. The object of Section 125
Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy
and to ensure that a wife and minor child are not
left without means of subsistence. While
determining the quantum of maintenance, the
Court is required to consider the income and
earning capacity of the husband, the financial
resources available to both parties, their
respective needs, the standard of living enjoyed
during the subsistence of the matrimonial

UKHC010177952019

2026:UHC:8026
relationship, the age and educational
requirements of the child, as well as the liabilities
and financial commitments of the parties. The
determination cannot be made on the basis of a
mechanical formula, but has to be founded upon
a judicious assessment of the overall
circumstances of the case.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepa Joshi Vs.
Gaurav Joshi, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
597, has reiterated that the obligation of a
husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and
continuing obligation and that such obligation
has to be discharged in a manner which enables
the wife to live with dignity and in a standard
reasonably commensurate with that enjoyed
during the subsistence of the marriage. It has
further been held that financial commitments,
particularly repayments which contribute
towards creation or enhancement of assets,
cannot be permitted to substantially dilute the
real earning capacity of the husband for the
purpose of determining his maintenance liability.
8. It is equally well settled that while
assessing the quantum of maintenance, the
Court has to strike a balance between the needs
of the claimant and the financial capacity of the
person liable to pay maintenance. Maintenance is
neither intended to be punitive nor to provide an
unjust enrichment to the claimant; at the same
time, the amount awarded must be realistic and
sufficient to enable the wife and child to live with
dignity.
9. In the present case, the material available
on record, including the Income Tax Returns and
the affidavits of assets, income and liabilities filed
by the parties, assumes considerable
significance. The income disclosed by the
respondent no.2 during the financial years 2018-
2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 indicates an
average annual income of approximately
₹ 20,00,000/-. There is no material on record to
establish that the respondent no.2 is burdened
with any substantial liability which would
materially reduce his capacity to maintain
revisionist nos.1 and 2. The respondent no.2,
therefore, has sufficient financial capacity to bear
a reasonable enhancement in the amount of
maintenance.

UKHC010177952019

2026:UHC:8026
10. This Court, while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, is required to ensure that the
amount fixed is fair, reasonable and
commensurate with the financial capacity of the
revisionist, without imposing an excessive or
disproportionate burden upon him. Upon an
overall consideration of the income and financial
position of the respondent no.2, the needs of
revisionist nos.1 and 2, their respective financial
circumstances, and the material brought on
record, this Court is of the view that maintenance
at the rate of ₹ 17,500/- per month each would
meet the ends of justice.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated
23.09.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dehradun is modified to the extent
that the maintenance payable to revisionist nos.1
and 2 is enhanced from ₹ 12,500/- per month
each to ₹ 17,500/- per month each. The enhanced
amount of maintenance shall be payable from the
date of this judgment. The remaining terms and
conditions of the impugned judgment shall
remain unaltered. It is further made clear that, in
view of the undertaking furnished by respondent
no.2 before this Court to bear the college
expenses of revisionist no. 2, respondent no. 2
shall continue to bear and pay such college
expenses in terms of the said undertaking.


(Alok Mahra, J.)
07.09.2026

Arpan




ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654
45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454
C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66,
cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.09.07 17:48:48 +05'30'