Satya Prakash Naithani ....Revisionist v. Smt. Punam Naithani Another

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 107 of 2020, whereby the application filed by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 under Section 125 of the Code has been allowed. The learned Court has directed the Revisionist to pay maintenance of rupees twenty-five thousand each per month to Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, totalling rupees fifty thousand per month, from the date of the application.

2. The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No. 1 was solemnised on 25.09.1998, and Respondent No. 2 was born out of the wedlock on 30.11.1999. Certain matrimonial differences subsequently

arose between the parties, and the Revisionist has not been residing with the Respondents since the year 2005. The Respondents have continued to reside in the ancestral property situated at Clement Town, Dehradun, in which the Revisionist is stated to have an undivided share. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.410 OF 2024 Satya Prakash Naithani Vs. Smt. Punam Naithani & Anr.- 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. The record further reveals that Respondent No. 1 has admitted in her evidence that she has been providing tuitions from the same premises. Respondent No. 2 holds a B.Ed. degree and, as reflected from the bank statements placed on record, has been employed as a teacher in a private school and was drawing a monthly salary during the relevant period.

4. The Revisionist states that he met with a major accident in the year 2021, 2022, in which his collar bone, ribs, and wrist bone were fractured, and that he has been unable to work since then. According to him, he has no permanent employment and had earlier been working privately as a draughtsman.

5. The record indicates that the application under Section 125 of the Code was filed in the year 2020, almost fifteen years after the separation, and no explanation was offered as to how the Respondents sustained themselves during this entire period.

6. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance of rupees fifty thousand per month without assessing the actual income of the Revisionist.

7. It was submitted that the Respondents produced no documentary evidence to establish their earning capacity.

8. Learned counsel of the Revisionist further submitted Respondent No.2 is a major daughter aged about twenty-five years and is employed as a teacher, and therefore, no maintenance could have been legally awarded to her. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.410 OF 2024 Satya Prakash Naithani Vs. Smt. Punam Naithani & Anr.- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the bank statements placed on record clearly indicate that she has been receiving salary from May 2023 onwards.

10. Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No.1 herself admitted that the total monthly expenses of the Respondents are approximately rupees fifteen thousand, and in this background, the award of rupees fifty thousand per month is wholly unjustified.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the Revisionist suffered serious injuries in an accident during the period between 2021 and 2022, and that at present he has no stable source of income. It was contended that the impugned judgment is unreasoned, perverse, and based on conjectures.

12. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Respondents are entitled to maintenance. It was stated that the Revisionist, being the husband and father, cannot be permitted to evade his legal obligation to maintain the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.1, who is dependent upon him.

13. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist and learned State Counsel. None appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite service. Perused the material on record.

14. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order. The Court does not reassess the evidence as an appellate court would, but it may interfere where the findings are perverse or material evidence has been ignored. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.410 OF 2024 Satya Prakash Naithani Vs. Smt. Punam Naithani & Anr.- 3 Ashish Naithani J.

15. In the present case, the learned Family Court has not made any assessment of the income of the Revisionist. No documentary evidence has been produced by the Respondents to establish a stable or substantial income of the Revisionist. In the absence of any reliable evidence, the award of rupees fifty thousand per month appears excessive and is not supported by the material available on record.

16. Respondent No. 1, in her own deposition, admitted that the total monthly expenses are approximately rupees fifteen thousand. She is also imparting tuition from the premises in which she resides. These factors indicate that she is not entirely without means, though she may still require some support.

17. As regards Respondent No. 2, the record clearly demonstrates that she is a major daughter aged about twenty-five years and has been earning a salary as a teacher, as reflected in the bank statements placed on record. A major, earning daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The award of maintenance in her favour, therefore, cannot be sustained.

18. The Revisionist has placed material on record to demonstrate that he suffered multiple fractures in an accident in the year 2021–22, which has affected his earning capacity. Considering the nature of his work and absence of permanent employment, the learned Family Court ought to have assessed his ability to pay maintenance in a realistic manner.

19. Having considered the overall facts, including the long separation since 2005, the absence of any proof of substantial income of the Revisionist, the admissions of Respondent No.1 regarding her own expenses, and the earning status of Respondent No.2, this Court is of the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.410 OF 2024 Satya Prakash Naithani Vs. Smt. Punam Naithani & Anr.- 4 Ashish Naithani J. view that the impugned order warrants interference to the extent indicated below. ORDER The Criminal Revision is partly allowed. The direction of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, granting maintenance of rupees twenty-five thousand per month to Respondent No. 2 is set aside, as she is a major and earning daughter and is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The maintenance awarded to Respondent No. 1 is reduced to rupees fifteen thousand per month, payable from the date of the application, subject to adjustment of any amount already paid. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2024 is modified accordingly. No further orders are required. Arti (Ashish Naithani, J.) 11.12.2025 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.410 OF 2024 Satya Prakash Naithani Vs. Smt. Punam Naithani & Anr.- 5 Ashish Naithani J.