Surendra Kumar Saxena --Revisionist v. State Of Uttarakhand and Ors

said order was challenged by the revisionist in Criminal Revision No.204 of 2011, whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 05.01.2012 had modified the order dated 02.07.2011 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/-p.m. instead of Rs.2,000/-p.m. to respondent No.2-wife and Rs.750/-p.m. instead of Rs.1,000/-p.m. to respondent No.3-daughter.

5. Thereafter, now respondent Nos.2 and 3 moved an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.313 of 2022 Renu Saxena @ Pooja Saxena and another Vs. Surendra Kumar Saxena, for enhancing the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Judge earlier. By the impugned order 2 dated 30.04.2025, the Misc. Criminal Case No.313 of 2022 under Section 127 Cr.P.C., was allowed and the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- p.m. in place of Rs.1,500/-p.m. to the respondent No.2-wife and Rs.5,000/-p.m. in place of Rs.750/- to respondent No.3-daughter Harshita Saxena, from the date of filing application Section 127 Cr.P.C. i.e.12.12.2022. The revisionist-husband was directed to pay the arrears of the maintenance amount within a period of one month from passing of that judgment and to make the payment of maintenance to both the respondent Nos.2 and 3 per month on 10th day of every month. It is feeling aggrieved, the revisionist is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of revisionist and respondent No.2 has already dissolved and the revisionist is complying with the order dated 05.01.2012 and paying the maintenance amount to respondent Nos.2 and 3. He further submits that after divorce, revisionist had got married second time and he had the added responsibility of second wife and two daughters out of the second marriage. He also submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court failed to consider that the revisionist is earning Rs.42,815/- as salary per month, out of which, he is already paying Rs.2,250/- to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per order dated 05.01.2012 and he has liability to maintain second wife and two children out of second marriage and rented accommodation.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court also failed to consider that the respondent No.2 is employed at U.C.P. Department, Pantnagar, and earns 3 more than Rs.18,000/- after the deductions and is able to sustain and maintain herself and further respondent No.2 failed to prove the expenses required for her own and for the maintenance of respondent No.3, and therefore, she is not entitled for any enhanced maintenance amount.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the judgment and order impugned in the present criminal revision. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding the failure to consider the financial status of the respondent No.2 is totally bereft of merit. This was an application moved by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which was granted to them by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2006 passed in Case No.207 of 2005. It appears that the maintenance amount granted in 2006 was enhanced subsequently by the Court in the year 2012 and the revisionist was paying Rs.2,250/- to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, though in argument learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is paying Rs.7,000/- to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. This argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is bereft of merit as keeping in view the inflation, the maintenance can be enhanced after the lapse of some period application moved applicant/petitioner, i.e. in this case by wife and the minor daughter.

9. Since, the original order was passed in 2006, by which a meager amount of Rs.1,800/-p.m. (Rs.1,200/-p.m. to respondent No.2-wife + Rs.600/-p.m. to respondent No.3-daughter) was granted, which was 4 enhanced subsequently by the orders of Hon’ble High Court to Rs.2,250/-p.m. (Rs.1,500/-p.m. to respondent No.2-wife + Rs.750/-p.m. to respondent No.3-daughter), therefore, there is no illegality committed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in enhancing the amount of maintenance in favour of wife-respondent No.2 and daughter-respondent No.3 from Rs.1,500/-p.m. Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the respondent No.2-wife and from Rs.750/- to Rs.5,000/-p.m. to respondent No.3-daughter Harshita Saxena. The revisionist admittedly, who is earning Rs.42,815/- as salary per month, can afford to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The amount is quite considerate and therefore, it needs no interference. Further, the revisionist cannot take shelter that he has been remarried and has two daughters inasmuch as a divorcee wife and minor daughter is still the liability of the husband-revisionist, who should be maintained by him. The reasoning given by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court while allowing the application is quite convincing and needs no interference.

10. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is dismissed in-limine.

11. of. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe3 8331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959A C, cn=PREETI NEGI Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.06.2025 5