Kulwant Kaur vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)

Present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2014, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no.2 against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Case No. 98 of 2011, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short "the D.V. Act"), was partly allowed and the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the revisionist was reduced.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the marriage between the revisionist/wife and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 02.05.1998; that, after some time of the marriage, the revisionist was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by respondent no.2 and his family members; that, on 01.07.2011, respondent no.2 physically assaulted the revisionist and ousted her from her matrimonial home; that, thereafter, the revisionist instituted Misc. Case No. 98 of 2011 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act; that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowed the said application vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2014 and directed respondent no.2/husband to pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month, ₹1,500/- per month towards rental accommodation and ₹2,000/-towards compensation under Section 22 of the D.V. Act; that, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2014 before the learned Sessions Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar; and that, vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2014, the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the learned Trial Court by reducing the maintenance amount from ₹10,000/- to ₹3,500/- per month, while maintaining the amount of ₹1,500/- per month towards rental accommodation, thereby directing respondent no.2 to pay a total sum of ₹5,000/- per month to the revisionist.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is legally unsustainable, as the learned Appellate Court has awarded an inadequate amount of maintenance to the revisionist without properly appreciating the income and financial status of respondent no.2. He would submit that the learned Appellate Court has assessed the income of respondent no.2 on the lower side and has failed to take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances while reducing the maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court; that, respondent no.2 had instituted a divorce petition before the learned Family Court concerned, which came to be dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Family Court was subsequently upheld by this Court in the first appeal preferred by respondent no.2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would also submit that respondent no.2 is presently working as a Gram Vikas Adhikari and, at the relevant point of time, he was employed as a Tube Well Operator and was earning approximately ₹65,000/- per month. He would further submit that respondent no.2 also owns sufficient agricultural land, from which he gains substantial income. Thus, according to learned counsel for the revisionist, there was no justifiable ground for the learned Appellate Court to reduce the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be restored.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/husband would submit that the learned Appellate Court has rightly assessed the monthly income of respondent no.2 after taking into consideration the material available on record; that, the revisionist has failed to establish that respondent no.2 was deriving any substantial income from agricultural land; that, there is no reliable evidence on record to establish the alleged agricultural income of respondent no.2 and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate court.

Learned counsel would further submit that no interim order staying the operation of the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court was granted by this Court and, consequently, respondent no.2 is facing difficulty in clearing the entire arrears of maintenance in one go. He, therefore, prays that an appropriate direction may be issued regarding payment of the arrears, keeping in view the financial circumstances of respondent no.2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of respondent no.2. It is a settled principle of law that a wife is entitled to live with dignity and in accordance with the status and standard of living of her husband. It is also not disputed that respondent no.2 is employed in a Government Department and was earning approximately ₹65,000/- per month at the relevant point of time. It is further apparent from the material available on record that respondent no.2 has agricultural land in his name and that the issue of his agricultural income has also been raised by the revisionist.

The object of granting maintenance under the D.V. Act is to ensure that the aggrieved person is able to maintain herself with dignity and is not subjected to financial deprivation. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the Court is required to consider the income and financial capacity of the respondent, the reasonable needs of the aggrieved person, the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship, and other relevant circumstances established from the record.

In the present case, having regard to the admitted employment of respondent no.2, his stated monthly income, the agricultural property attributed to him, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the reduction of maintenance made by the learned Appellate Court, from ₹10,000/- to ₹3,500/- per month, has not been adequately justified. The learned Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the relevant factors concerning the financial capacity of respondent no.2 and the reasonable requirements of the revisionist.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2014, is hereby set aside to the extent of the reduction in the amount of maintenance. The judgment and order dated 28.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is restored to the extent indicated hereinbelow.

Respondent no.2 is directed to pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the revisionist and a sum of ₹1,500/- per month towards rental accommodation, in accordance with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The aforesaid amount shall be payable from the date of this order, i.e., 22.09.2026, and shall be deposited by respondent no.2 on or before the 7th day of each English calendar month in the bank account of the revisionist or in such manner as may be directed by the learned Court concerned.

So far as the arrears of maintenance are concerned, it is submitted that no interim order staying the operation of the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court was granted by this Court during the pendency of the present revision. Accordingly, respondent no.2 is directed to deposit 20% of the total arrears of maintenance, as calculated in accordance with the applicable orders and after giving due adjustment of the amount, if any, already paid or deposited, within a period of three months from today before the learned Court concerned, for payment to the revisionist. The remaining arrears shall be dealt with in accordance with law, subject to any further order passed by the competent Court.

It is clarified that the aforesaid directions shall not prejudice the rights of either party in any other proceedings relating to maintenance or other reliefs under the applicable law. The amount, if any, already paid by respondent no.2 towards maintenance or rental accommodation shall be duly adjusted while calculating the arrears, so as to avoid duplication of payment.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present criminal revision stands allowed in part and is accordingly disposed of.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

MTA ^{b, postalCode=263001,} RANI ^{Date: 2026.09.23 11:06:49}