Parinay Singh ......Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand Another

Case No. 10 of 2021, titled as “Smt. Chanda Singh vs. Parinay Singh”, whereby the learned court directed the Revisionist to pay interim maintenance of `20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) per month to Respondent No.2 under 1 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. Section 125 of the Code. The limited challenge in this Revision is to grant and quantum of interim maintenance.

2. The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.11.2019 according to Hindu rites. After a short period of cohabitation, matrimonial discord arose between the parties, and they started living separately.

3. Respondent No.2 filed Criminal Case No. 10 of 2021 before the Family Court, Dehradun, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking monthly maintenance. She asserted that the Revisionist, being gainfully employed, had sufficient means to maintain her, whereas she had no independent source of income.

4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Respondent No.2 moved an application interim maintenance. The Revisionist filed a reply and an affidavit of assets in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajnesh v. Neha” (2021) 2 SCC 324.

5. By the impugned order dated 15.07.2022, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of 2 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. rupees twenty thousand per month to Respondent No.2 from the date of the application. The learned court observed that Respondent No.2 lacked independent means, whereas the Revisionist was earning a regular salary and possessed the financial capacity to pay such maintenance.

6. Aggrieved, the Revisionist the present Criminal Revision along with an application seeking condonation of delay. By order dated 22.07.2024, the delay was condoned. Thereafter, the Revision has been taken up for final hearing.

7. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable. It was urged that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the actual income of the Revisionist as reflected in the salary certificate and affidavit of assets. According to counsel, the Revisionist’s net income, after statutory deductions and loan liabilities, is significantly lower than what has been presumed by the Family Court.

8. It was contended that Respondent No.2 is an educated and skilled individual who earns from tailoring work at her parental home. Learned counsel argued that the 3 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. learned Family Court ignored her earning capacity and incorrectly proceeded on the assumption that she was wholly dependent upon the Revisionist.

9. It was further argued that the marriage itself was of a very short duration and the parties separated within a brief span of time. The conduct of Respondent No.2, it was submitted, shows that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. According to counsel, in such circumstances, the quantum of rupees twenty thousand per month is excessive and disproportionate to the Revisionist’s means.

10. Learned counsel for Revisionist submitted that the impugned order does not reflect due application of mind to the material placed on record, particularly the Revisionist’s liabilities, salary structure, and the contradiction Respondent No.2’s financial disclosures. It was argued that the learned court has mechanically fixed an amount without recording reasons supported by evidence.

11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and submitted that the Revisionist is in regular employment and earns a stable salary, as is evident from the documents placed before the Family Court. It was 4 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. argued that the Revisionist has adequate financial capacity and has suppressed portions of his true earnings.

12. It was contended that Respondent No.2 is not employed in any regular establishment and has no assured income. According to counsel, tailoring activity occasionally undertaken by Respondent No.2 cannot be treated as a regular source of livelihood. She has no independent means to sustain herself and is fully dependent upon the statutory remedy under Section 125 of the Code.

13. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 submitted that interim maintenance is intended to secure a dignified subsistence for a deserted wife during pendency of litigation. The sum of rupees twenty thousand per month, it was urged, is reasonable in light of the Revisionist’s earning capacity and the cost of living in the present social and economic conditions.

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

15. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code is narrow and circumscribed. The Revisional Court does not sit in appeal 5 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. over the order of the court below, nor is it empowered to reassess the factual matrix or re-appreciate material as an appellate court would. Interference is warranted only where the order suffers from patent illegality, material irregularity, manifest perversity or jurisdictional error. An order granting interim maintenance, being provisional in nature, is entitled to greater latitude.

16. The learned Family Court took into consideration the affidavit of assets filed by the Revisionist, the salary certificate, bank statements, and the material placed by Respondent No.2. The Court recorded a prima satisfaction that the Revisionist is employed, earns a regular income, and possesses sufficient means to maintain Respondent No.2. This finding is based upon a plausible appreciation of material and does not appear to be either arbitrary or perverse.

17. The contention that the learned court below failed to consider the liabilities of the Revisionist, including loan installments, is not of such nature that it would render the impugned order illegal. Liabilities and deductions are matters to be examined in depth at the stage of final 6 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. adjudication. At the interim stage, the court is required only to form a tentative view based on the earning capacity of the husband and the subsistence needs of the wife.

18. The contention that Respondent No.2 is capable of earning and undertakes tailoring work does not, at this stage, disqualify her claim interim maintenance. Occasional or informal earning activity cannot be treated as a stable or sufficient source of livelihood. Whether Respondent No.2 has regular income or is voluntarily unemployed are factual issues requiring evidence and cannot be conclusively determined while considering an interim application.

19. It is also relevant that the affidavits filed by the Revisionist disclose a level of income which, even after accounting for the liabilities claimed by him, does not prima facie appear insufficient to meet the interim award. The quantum of rupees twenty thousand per month cannot be said to be disproportionate to the financial capacity asserted by the Revisionist in his own affidavit.

20. The marriage between the parties may have been of short duration, but this factor does not diminish the 7 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. obligation of a legally wedded husband to provide subsistence to his wife under Section 125 of the Code. Interim maintenance is intended to ensure that the wife is not left without means of living during the pendency of proceedings. The Family Court correctly applied this principle.

21. The supervisory role of the Revisional Court over interim maintenance orders is limited to examining whether the determination is wholly unjust or suffers from non- application of mind. The impugned order, upon a careful reading, does not reveal any material irregularity. The learned Family Court has assigned reasons, considered relevant material, and exercised its discretion judiciously.

22. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find illegality, perversity, procedural irregularity or jurisdictional infirming impugned order, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family 8 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J. Court, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 10 of 2021. The order awarding interim maintenance of rupees twenty thousand per month to Respondent No.2 is affirmed. The Criminal Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

10.12.2025 (Ashish Naithani, J.) Akash AKASH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef 73518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224 c891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH 9 Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2023 “Parinay Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.” Ashish Naithani J.