ANKUR SHARMA vs SHALINI

UKHC010054552026

2026:UHC:7959
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

CRLR/243/2026

Ankur Sharma ……… Revisionist
Versus
Shalini ……….. Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma and Mr.
Ramesh Nainwal, learned counsel for the
revisionist.
2. Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel
for respondents.
3. By means of the present criminal
revision, the revisionist has assailed the
judgment and order dated 11.03.2026
passed by the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham
Singh Nagar, in Misc. Case No. 113 of
2025, whereby the application preferred
by respondent nos.1 and 2 under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been allowed and the revisionist has
been directed to pay maintenance to
respondent no.1-wife and respondent
₹
no.2-minor son at the rate of 8,000/- per
month each, amounting to a total sum of
₹ 16,000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would submit that the marriage between
the revisionist and respondent no.1 was
solemnized on 14.11.2021 according to
Hindu rites and ceremonies and, out of
the said wedlock, one male child, namely
respondent no.2, was born; that, after
some time, matrimonial disputes arose

UKHC010054552026

2026:UHC:7959
between the parties, on account of which
respondent no.1 started residing
separately from the revisionist along with
the minor child. Thereafter, respondent
nos.1 and 2 instituted proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming
maintenance from the revisionist.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would further submit that the learned
Family Court, without properly
appreciating the material and evidence
available on record, has awarded
maintenance of ₹ 8,000/- per month each
to respondent nos.1 and 2. It is submitted
that the impugned judgment and order
has been passed without proper
appreciation of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the
evidence brought on record.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would further submit that the impugned
judgment and order is based upon
presumptions and surmises and is
contrary to the material available on
record; that, the learned Court below has
awarded maintenance in a routine and
arbitrary manner without properly
appreciating the relevant facts and
evidence and has directed payment of
maintenance from the date of filing of the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
7. He would further submit that
respondent no.1 is highly qualified, being
a postgraduate and also holding a
Diploma in Elementary Education; that,
she is working as a teacher in a school at
Gadarpur and has an independent source
of income, however, according to the
revisionist, respondent no.1 suppressed

UKHC010054552026

2026:UHC:7959
the said material facts while seeking
maintenance; that, on these grounds, it is
submitted that the impugned judgment
and order is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2
would submit that the revisionist is
employed as a Manager with H.D.F.C.
Bank and is earning a monthly salary of
more than ₹ 75,000/-. It is submitted that
the learned Family Court has taken into
consideration the salary slips and
income-tax returns of the revisionist
while assessing his financial capacity and
awarding maintenance.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents
would further submit that merely because
respondent no.1 is highly qualified, she
cannot be denied maintenance; that, so
far as the allegation that respondent no.1
is employed as a teacher and has an
independent source of income is
concerned, no reliable or cogent evidence
has been placed on record by the
revisionist to establish that she is earning
sufficient income for maintaining herself
and the minor child. It is, therefore,
submitted that the learned Family Court
has rightly assessed the financial capacity
of the revisionist and awarded reasonable
maintenance in favour of the
respondents. Hence, no interference with
the impugned judgment and order is
called for.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. It is not disputed that respondent
no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the

UKHC010054552026

2026:UHC:7959
revisionist and respondent no.2 is their
minor son. It is also not disputed that the
revisionist is employed as a Manager with
H.D.F.C. Bank and is earning a regular
monthly income of approximately
₹ 75,000/-. The object of proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent
vagrancy and destitution and to provide a
speedy remedy to a wife and minor
children who are unable to maintain
themselves. It is a settled principle of law
that a legally wedded wife is entitled to
claim maintenance commensurate with
the income, financial capacity, status and
standard of living of her husband.
12. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil
Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC
715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that merely because the wife is educated
or possesses some earning capacity, she
cannot be denied maintenance unless it
is established that she has sufficient
independent income to maintain herself.
The maintenance awarded must be
reasonable and realistic, having regard to
the status and financial capacity of the
husband.
13. In the present case, although the
revisionist has alleged that respondent
no.1 is working as a teacher and has an
independent source of income, no cogent
and reliable evidence has been placed on
record to establish that she is earning
sufficient income so as to maintain
herself and the minor child. Mere
educational qualification or earning
capacity of the wife, by itself, cannot be a
ground to deny maintenance. On the
other hand, the material available on
record establishes that the revisionist is

UKHC010054552026

2026:UHC:7959
gainfully employed and has a regular
monthly income of approximately
₹ 75,000/-.
14. Having regard to his financial
capacity, the needs of respondent no.1
and the minor child, and the standard of
living to which they are reasonably
entitled, this Court finds that the
maintenance awarded by the learned
Family Court at the rate of ₹ 8,000/- per
month each to respondent nos.1 and 2
cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary
or unreasonable.
15. This Court, upon consideration of
the material available on record, finds no
illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error
in the impugned judgment and order
dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Udham Singh Nagar, warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction.
16. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing
discussion, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment
and order dated 11.03.2026 passed by
the learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar.
Consequently, the present criminal
revision is disposed of.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of accordingly.

MAMTA
RANI

(Alok Mahra, J.)
02-09-2026
Mamta

Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e
430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6
8911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.09.03 17:28:13 +05'30'