ANIL JOSHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010172562019

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/620/2019


Anil Joshi
--Revisionist

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Bharat Tewari,
Advocates for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for
respondent no.2.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed 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 respondent nos.2 and 3
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the
revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of
₹ 12,500/- per month each to respondent nos.2
and 3.

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 the revisionist.
Thereafter, in the year 2005, a daughter was born
to the parties, who is respondent no.3 herein.
Subsequently, matrimonial discord arose between
the revisionist and respondent no.2, on account
of which respondent no.2, along with her minor
daughter, was constrained to leave her
matrimonial home on 29.05.2014. Since then,
they have been residing separately. As the
revisionist failed to maintain respondent nos.2

UKHC010172562019

2026:UHC:8026
and 3 and neglected to provide them with the
means of subsistence, they were constrained to
institute proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
in the year 2015. Learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dehradun, after considering the
material available on record, vide judgment and
order dated 23.09.2019, allowed the application
and awarded maintenance of ₹ 12,500/- per
month each to respondent nos.2 and 3 from the
date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said order,
the present criminal revision has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that the amount of maintenance awarded by
learned Principal Judge, Family Court is
excessive and disproportionate to the actual
income of the revisionist. It is contended that the
income of the revisionist has been assessed on
the higher side, whereas, in fact, the revisionist
has not been earning any income since the year
2022. It is further submitted that respondent
no.2 was engaged on contractual basis through
UPNL in the year 2021 and, being highly
educated and capable of earning her livelihood,
she cannot claim maintenance from the
revisionist. On these grounds, it is submitted that
the maintenance awarded by learned Family
Court deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 submits that the revisionist has
deliberately concealed his actual income and
failed to place his Income Tax Returns on record
despite the directions issued by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, in the light of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, reported in (2021)
2 SCC 324. It is further submitted that, during
the pendency of the present revision, pursuant to
the order passed by this Court, the revisionist
produced his Income Tax Returns for the
financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-
2021. A perusal thereof demonstrates that the
average annual income of the revisionist during
the said period was approximately ₹ 20,00,000/-
per annum. Thus, the contention that the
maintenance awarded by learned Family Court is
excessive is wholly unfounded and does not merit
interference.

6. This Court finds substance in the
submission advanced by learned counsel for

UKHC010172562019

2026:UHC:8026
respondent no.2. The Income Tax Returns
produced by the revisionist during the pendency
of the present revision reveal that his average
annual income during the financial years 2018-
2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 was
approximately ₹ 20,00,000/- per annum. Such
income works out to approximately ₹ 1,66,000/-
per month. Therefore, the amount of ₹ 12,500/-
per month awarded to each of the respondents
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to
be excessive or disproportionate, particularly
having regard to the fact that respondent no.2 is
maintaining herself as well as respondent no.3,
her daughter. The revisionist has also failed to
demonstrate any compelling circumstance
warranting reduction of the amount awarded by
the learned Family Court.


7. The subsequent assertion of the revisionist
that he has not been earning any income since
the year 2022 cannot, by itself, justify
interference with the impugned judgment. No
cogent or reliable material has been placed on
record to establish that the revisionist has
suffered such a substantial and permanent
change in his financial circumstances as would
render him incapable of complying with the
maintenance order. Mere assertion of diminished
or discontinued income, without satisfactory
proof of the same, cannot absolve a person of his
statutory obligation to maintain his wife and
minor daughter. It is pertinent to note here that
learned Family Court has to see the income of the
revisionist at the time of filing of the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and subsequent
increase or decrease in the income may also be
taken into consideration till the disposal of the
application. In the present case, admittedly the
income of the revisionist was about 20,00,000/-
per annum, as such, there is no infirmity in the
order impugned.


8. The next submission of learned counsel for
the revisionist is that respondent no.2 is highly
educated and, therefore, capable of maintaining
herself. The said submission also does not merit
acceptance. It is well settled that mere
educational qualification of a wife, by itself, is not
sufficient to deny her maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C. What is required to be examined is

UKHC010172562019

2026:UHC:8026
whether she has sufficient independent income
and is actually in a position to maintain herself in
accordance with the circumstances of the
matrimonial life. In the present case, there is no
material on record to establish that respondent
no.2 was gainfully employed or had any
independent source of income during the
pendency of the proceedings before the learned
Family Court or at the time when the impugned
judgment was rendered. It has also come on
record that respondent no.2 was residing
separately from the revisionist and was required
to take care of her minor daughter. In such
circumstances, her mere educational
qualification cannot be treated as a substitute for
actual financial independence. The fact that
respondent no.2 subsequently obtained
contractual employment through UPNL in the
year 2021 also does not , in the facts of the
present case, render the impugned judgment
unsustainable. Learned Family Court was
required to adjudicate the claim for maintenance
on the basis of the circumstances and material
relevant to the proceedings before it. A
subsequent change in the financial
circumstances of either party may, subject to law,
furnish a ground for seeking alteration of the
quantum of maintenance in appropriate
proceedings, but such subsequent event, by
itself, does not invalidate the order which was
otherwise justified on the material available
before the learned Family Court.


9. It is also well settled that the jurisdiction
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent
destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a
wife and minor child are not left without the basic
means of sustenance. The quantum of
maintenance has to be determined having regard
to the income and financial capacity of the
husband, the needs of the wife and child, their
standard of living, and the other relevant
circumstances of the case.


10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this
Court finds no illegality or perversity in the
impugned order dated 23.09.2019 warranting
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
The revisionist has failed to demonstrate that the
maintenance awarded to respondent nos.2 and 3

UKHC010172562019

2026:UHC:8026
is either excessive or contrary to the material
available on record.


11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is
dismissed.


(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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20
dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB
987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.09.07 17:48:03 +05'30'