Gurbhajan Singh vs Harminder Kaur

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

By means of the present Criminal Revision, the revisionist has sought setting-aside of the order dated 12.08.2026, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Misc. Criminal Case No. 58 of 2025, Harminder Kaur vs. Gurbhajan Singh, whereby the learned Court has fixed interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month with effect from the date of application, payable on or before the 10th day each succeeding month in favor of Smt. Harminder Kaur/respondent.

Assailing the impugned order dated 12.08.2026, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar District, Dehradun, learned counsel for the revisionist/husband would submit that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun has erred by granting an interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the wife. Learned counsel for the revisionist assails the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 on the ground that the amount which has been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun to draw the inference that the monthly income of the revisionist/husband is ₹30,000 per month includes the amount of sale deed and he would submit that the monthly income of the husband/revisionist is far below ₹30,000 per month.

The next ground being agitated on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that, in addition to the responsibility of maintaining the wife, there are two ailing brothers of the revisionist whose responsibility of maintenance and medication, etc., has also fallen on the revisionist.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that without any reasonable cause, the wife/respondent has left the company of the husband/revisionist, and as such, there is no question of granting any interim maintenance to the wife/respondent. He would further submit that the wife/respondent has initiated multiple litigations, and the application for maintenance has been filed after the institution of the suit for divorce, after she left the matrimonial home at her own volition.

Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, what falls for consideration in this Criminal Revision is whether the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun has erred by drawing the inference that the revisionist/husband is having a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-?

A perusal of the impugned order in para 9 would reveal that there have been multiple bank transactions in the bank account of the revisionist, and on the basis of the same, the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun has drawn an inference that on account of the bank transactions of the revisionist/husband, a monthly income of ₹30,000 is being deemed to be his income. Learned counsel for the revisionist, however, does not deny that the respondent is the wife of the revisionist.

The second ground agitated on behalf of the revisionist that the maintenance application has been filed after the institution of the divorce. This cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to the respondent wife.

The next ground being agitated that the respondent wife is living separately from the husband since the last two years also cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance.

The other ground being agitated on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun has not dealt with the aspect of the matter that the respondent wife has left the matrimonial house on her own volition.

All these aspects which are being raised by the learned counsel for the husband/revisionist would find deliberation in the final outcome of the maintenance proceedings. At this stage, the only consideration at the stage of granting interim maintenance is the relationship between the parties and the income of the husband.

In the present case, the monthly income of the husband has been assessed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun on the basis of the bank transactions. Hence, this finding is based on record and does not warrant any interference. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the respondent is the wife of the revisionist.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference at this stage.

Hence, the Criminal Revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, the revisionist would be at liberty to raise all defences available to him and the maintenance application will be decided on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.