Pushpa Devi and Another v. Counsel for the

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 545 of 2020 has been filed by the applicants Pushpa Devi and her minor son Master Ojas Kumar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment Criminal Misc. Application No.545 of 2020-----Pushpa Devi & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020----Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others 1 Ashish Naithani J. and order dated 28.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 94/2018, as well as the judgment and order dated

31.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Revision No. 14/2019.

2. The applicants enhancement maintenance amount from Rs. 9,000/- per month to Rs. 25,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Simultaneously, Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020 has been filed by respondent Deepak Kumar seeking quashing of the maintenance orders and stay of their operation.

3. The marriage between applicant-Pushpa Devi and respondent-Deepak Kumar was solemnized on 01.05.2013 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of this wedlock, a son, Master Ojas Kumar, was born, who is presently six years old.

4. The respondent Deepak Kumar is employed as an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School Sheraghat and draws a monthly salary of Rs. 41,856/-. The applicant claims that after marriage, she was subjected to harassment and torture for dowry by her husband and in-laws, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home multiple times.

5. Two written compromises were executed between the parties on 06.05.2015 and 11.01.2018, wherein the applicant agreed to return to the matrimonial home, but allegedly, the harassment continued.

6. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that on

18.08.2017, her husband assaulted her and threw her out of the house after bringing her back from her parental home on the occasion of their son's birthday. Criminal Misc. Application No.545 of 2020-----Pushpa Devi & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020----Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. Subsequently, when her husband took her to his posting place at Sheraghat, District Almora, his behaviour remained abusive, marked by habitual alcohol consumption and subjecting her to physical violence.

8. On 15.07.2018, landlord informed applicant's father about the respondent's misbehaviour, following which the applicant returned to her parental home and has been residing there since.

9. Owing to financial hardship, the applicant filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, on 10.08.2018, seeking a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000/- from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the courts below failed to appreciate the material available on record and did not consider the case of the applicants in its proper perspective.

12. It is contended that the respondent, being a Government Teacher, draws a monthly salary of ₹41,856/- and is financially capable of providing adequate maintenance to the applicants. However, both the trial court and the revisional court awarded a meagre sum of ₹9,000/- per month, which is wholly insufficient to maintain the dignity of the applicants' living standards and to provide proper education and care for the minor child.

13. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had initially sought ₹25,000/- per month as maintenance, keeping in view the respondent’s income and the growing Criminal Misc. Application No.545 of 2020-----Pushpa Devi & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020----Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others 3 Ashish Naithani J. needs of the child, especially in relation to his education and overall welfare.

14. It is argued that the sum of ₹9,000/- awarded is inadequate and falls short of the legitimate needs of the applicants, thereby necessitating enhancement to ₹25,000/- per month.

15. In response, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently denies the allegations of cruelty and harassment. It is submitted that the applicant possesses a short temper and a quarrelsome disposition. She consistently failed to fulfil her matrimonial obligations, thereby disturbing peace and harmony in the respondent’s household.

16. Learned counsel further argues that the applicant compelled the respondent to live separately from his old and ailing mother and mentally disabled sister. When the respondent declined to sever ties with his family, the applicant is stated to have wilfully deserted the matrimonial home.

17. It is further contended that the respondent has always been willing to reside with his wife and child and make efforts toward reconciliation. Still, the applicant has shown no interest in resuming the matrimonial relationship. It is submitted that her sole focus appears to be financial gain.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent also highlights that, following the demise of his father on 11.09.2020 due to a brain haemorrhage, the respondent incurred medical expenses of approximately ₹6 lakhs. Additionally, he bears the ongoing financial burden of supporting his elderly mother and mentally disabled sister. Given these circumstances, it is submitted that it is not feasible for the respondent to pay any amount in excess of the ₹9,000/- per month already awarded as maintenance. Criminal Misc. Application No.545 of 2020-----Pushpa Devi & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020----Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others 4 Ashish Naithani J.

19. Upon careful perusal of the record and considering the submissions made by both parties, this Court observes several significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the applicant's case. The applicant's conduct of repeatedly leaving the matrimonial home and returning after compromises, only to leave again, raises serious questions about her bona fide intentions to maintain the matrimonial relationship. The existence of two written compromises dated 06.05.2015 and

11.01.2018 clearly demonstrates that the applicant had voluntarily agreed to live with her husband on both occasions, thereby belying her claims of continuous harassment and torture.

20. The Court notes that while the applicant seeks enhancement of maintenance citing the respondent's income, she has failed to demonstrate any serious effort to contribute to her own livelihood despite being a graduate. The respondent's submission regarding his additional financial responsibilities towards his aged mother and mentally disabled sister, coupled with the recent substantial medical expenses incurred for his deceased father's treatment, presents a compelling case for financial hardship.

21. The Court observes that the applicant's demand for Rs. 25,000/- per month appears to be disproportionate and unreasonable considering the respondent's net income after meeting his existing family obligations.

22. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant has been residing separately from her husband since 2018 without making any genuine effort for reconciliation, which indicates her lack of interest in maintaining the matrimonial relationship. The respondent's consistent willingness to take back his wife Criminal Misc. Application No.545 of 2020-----Pushpa Devi & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020----Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others 5 Ashish Naithani J. and child, as evidenced in his pleadings, contrasts sharply with the applicant's adamant refusal to return to the matrimonial home.

23. While balancing competing claims and considering the welfare of the minor child, this Court must examine whether the applicant has made out a case for enhancement of maintenance. The evidence on record suggests that the applicant left the matrimonial home voluntarily and has been residing separately despite the respondent's willingness to take her back. The respondent's financial constraints, including his obligations towards his aged mother and disabled sister, coupled with recent substantial medical expenses, cannot be ignored.

24. The Court also considers that the applicant, being a graduate, is capable of contributing to her own livelihood but has not made any effort in this direction. The maintenance amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month, as awarded by the revisional court, appears to be reasonable considering the respondent's income and his other financial obligations.

25. The welfare of the minor child, while being of paramount importance, must be balanced against the financial capacity of the father and the conduct of the mother. The existing maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- for the child appears adequate for his basic needs, education, and welfare.

26. After careful consideration of the entire material on record, submissions of the parties, and the applicable legal principles, this Court finds that the applicant has failed to make out a case for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month.

27. The applicant's conduct of leaving the matrimonial home repeatedly despite compromises, her reluctance to Criminal Misc. Application No.545 of 2020-----Pushpa Devi & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020----Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others 6 Ashish Naithani J. return despite the respondent's willingness, and her failure to make any effort towards self-sustenance, coupled with the respondent's genuine financial constraints, lead this Court to conclude that the existing maintenance amount is reasonable and justified. ORDER The Criminal Misc. Application No. 545 of 2020 filed by the applicant seeking enhancement of maintenance is hereby dismissed. However, considering that the respondent in Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020 has sought complete quashing of the maintenance orders, which would adversely affect the welfare of the minor child. The said application is also dismissed to the extent it seeks quashing of maintenance for the child. The maintenance amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- for the wife and Rs. 4,000/- for the child) as ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar vide order dated 31.01.2020, shall continue. Both applications are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Dt: 16.05.2025 SB ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.545 of 2020-----Pushpa Devi & Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Another with Criminal Misc. Application No. 687 of 2020----Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others 7 Ashish Naithani J.