Vishal Khanduri ......Revisionist State of Uttarakhand and Another … v. With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri ......Revisionist Vs. State of

Mr. Piyush Garg, Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the Revisionist in CRLR No.213 of 2024. Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel for the Revisionist in CRLR No. 406 of 2024 Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in CRLR No.406 of 2024 Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. Both Revisions arise from a common order dated 19 January 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 487 of 2021 (Smt. Parul Khanduri v. Vishal Khanduri), whereby the husband was directed to pay ₹ 30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 213 OF 2024 Vishal Khanduri Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

2. The parties married on 21 February 2007 in Delhi and have been living separately since 2016. The wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging neglect and refusal to maintain her despite sufficient means; the husband denied the allegations, claiming unemployment since 2013 and dependence on parental support.

3. The husband, Vishal Khanduri, filed CRLR No. 213 of 2024 challenging the quantum and basis of the Family Court’s order. The wife, Smt. Parul Khanduri filed CRLR No. 406 of 2024 seeking enhancement and removal of remarks perceived as adverse to her.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Piyush Garg on behalf of Revisionist-Husband submitted that the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 suffers from manifest arbitrariness and rests on conjecture rather than evidence. It was urged that the learned Family Court presumed an earning capacity of approximately ₹70,000 per month without any tangible proof on record.

5. According to learned Counsel, the Revisionist has remained unemployed since 2013; his Income Tax Returns and bank statements filed before the court below demonstrate continuous losses in share trading. It is urged that these circumstances were wholly ignored in fixing the quantum of maintenance.

6. Learned Counsel on behalf of Revisionist-husband contended that the finding that the husband “must be earning something” merely because he is highly qualified, is speculative and unsupported by evidence. It was argued that under Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court is required to undertake a realistic and evidence-based assessment of income, and not resort to presumption or surmise. The Family Court failed to record any definite finding as to the current source of income or earning capacity of the husband,and thereby committed a material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 213 OF 2024 Vishal Khanduri Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. It was further contended that the learned Family Court ignored the material circumstance that the Revisionist’s earlier obligation to pay ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance had been upheld by this Hon’ble Court upon due consideration of his financial status. In the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, the enhancement to ₹30,000 per month is wholly unjustified.

8. Learned Counsel on behalf of Revisionist-husband further submitted that the wife has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable cause and that her conduct disentitles her to claim maintenance. The revisionist continues to bear expenses towards his aged parents and is in no financial position to meet the exaggerated demand. The impugned order, it was argued, is therefore liable to be set aside or suitably modified.

9. Learned Counsel Mr. Pankaj Semwal, appearing for the Revisionist–wife, submitted that the amount of ₹30,000 per month awarded by the Family Court is meagre and grossly inadequate considering the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during cohabitation and the medical expenses presently incurred by the wife. It was contended that the husband belongs to a financially sound family, is well educated, and deliberately suppressed his true income by filing misleading income affidavits and incomplete financial disclosures.

10. It was further submitted that the learned Family Court rightly drew an adverse inference against the husband for withholding full particulars of income,but erred in not awarding a just and reasonable amount of maintenance proportionate to his status and means. The wife, having been subjected to prolonged neglect and financial deprivation, is compelled to depend upon relatives for subsistence, which defeats the very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 213 OF 2024 Vishal Khanduri Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. Learned Counsel on behalf of Revisionist-wifeemphasized that the wife’s application for delay condonation in filing the present revision deserves acceptance in view of her bona fide explanation of ill health and lack of financial resources. It was urged that technical considerations of limitation should not defeat the substantive right of a deserted wife to seek adequate maintenance.

12. Lastly, it was contended that the impugned order warrants enhancement of the maintenance to a reasonable figure, keeping in view the escalating cost of living, her medical condition, and the husband’s concealed earning potential. The Family Court, it was urged, has exercised discretion with material irregularity in assessing quantum and the same calls for interference by this Court.

13. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

14. The dispute before this Court concerns the propriety of the order dated

19.01.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, directing payment of ₹30,000 per month as maintenance to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

15. The power under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is remedial in nature, designed to prevent destitution and ensure that a wife, unable to maintain herself, is not left without means of subsistence. The provision, being a measure of social justice, must be interpreted liberally to advance its object, and the sufficiency of means or proof of actual income cannot be approached with hyper-technical rigidity.

16. It is evident from the record that the husband and wife have been living separately since 2016. The husband has claimed to be unemployed since 2013 and to have suffered losses in share trading, while the wife has asserted that he continues to maintain a comfortable lifestyle supported by family resources. The Family Court, after evaluating their respective CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 213 OF 2024 Vishal Khanduri Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another 4 Ashish Naithani J. affidavits, concluded that the husband is a qualified and able-bodied person who cannot be presumed to be without any earning capacity.

17. The contention of the husband that he has no source of income and is entirely dependent on his parents is unpersuasive. As observed in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court is entitled to draw an inference that a person with reasonable qualifications and past employment history has the potential to earn and maintain his dependents. The burden lies upon the husband to produce cogent evidence of total incapacity or other mitigating circumstances, which, in the present case, he has failed to discharge.

18. The Family Court’s reasoning does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The husband’s own financial disclosures are incomplete and inconsistent. The Income-Tax Returns placed on record indicate investment activity and movement of funds, which belie the claim of total unemployment. The learned Court below was, therefore, justified in assessing his earning capacity on a reasonable estimation drawn from surrounding circumstances.

19. The quantum of ₹30,000 per month cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate, having regard to the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during cohabitation and the cost of living in the city of Dehradun. It bears reiteration that maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not punitive but compensatory meant to enable the wife to live with dignity consistent with her status, and not in luxury. The figure so determined reflects a fair balance between the husband’s means and the wife’s legitimate needs.

20. On a comprehensive appraisal, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are supported by evidence, consistent with settled principles, and do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order achieves a just balance CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 213 OF 2024 Vishal Khanduri Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another 5 Ashish Naithani J. between the obligations of the husband and the needs of the wife, and no case for modification or reduction of maintenance is made out. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and the conclusions reached hereinabove, the Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated

19.01.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 487 of 2021 (Smt. Parul Khanduri v. Vishal Khanduri), is well-reasoned and legally sustainable. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 213 of 2024 (Vishal Khanduri v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.) fails and is dismissed. The application for condonation of delay filed in Criminal Revision No. 406 of 2024 (Smt. Parul Khanduri v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.) is allowed. Upon such condonation, the revision itself does not merit interference, as the impugned order withstands judicial scrutiny on all counts. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 406 of 2024 is also dismissed. The order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, directing payment of ₹ 30,000 per month by the husband to the wife as maintenance from the date of application, is hereby affirmed in toto. Both the Revisions stand disposed of accordingly. Dated:20.11.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 213 OF 2024 Vishal Khanduri Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another With CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 406 OF 2024 Mrs. Parul Khanduri Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another 6 Ashish Naithani J.