In a revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order from the Family Judge in Haldwani, the Uttarakhand High Court decided that existing loans and financial problems are not enough to reduce maintenance payments under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The case began when the revisionist’s wife applied for maintenance for herself and their daughter. She claimed that after their marriage, she faced harassment and torture over dowry demands, which led to her separation from her husband.
Justice Ravindra Maithani, presiding over the case, upheld the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that “taking loan may not be a ground, per se, to reduce the amount of maintenance.”
The ruling emphasized that financial obligations from loans do not automatically reduce an individual’s responsibility to provide sufficient maintenance to dependents.
The Family Judge in Haldwani, District Nainital, had raised the interim maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 7,500 per month—allocating Rs. 4,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,500 for the daughter. This increase was made to ensure adequate support for the revisionist’s estranged wife and daughter, taking into account the revisionist’s salary of Rs. 28,241 after deductions.
In his defense, the revisionist argued that his wife left without a valid reason and was financially independent, with a graduate degree and income from tutoring. He also mentioned that he was already paying Rs. 5,000 a month as part of a previous order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Additionally, he said that his salary of Rs. 28,000 was stretched thin because he had to support his elderly mother and pay a loan with monthly installments of Rs. 10,000.
However, the court decided that the existing maintenance amount was not enough for the respondents’ needs and believed that the revisionist could afford the higher amount.
Justice Maithani acknowledged the revisionist’s financial obligations but found that the Family Court had already taken these into account when setting the maintenance amount. He noted that “after deductions, the revisionist’s salary is Rs. 28,241,” confirming that he could afford to pay the increased maintenance.
The court also noted that its role in revising the case was limited to checking the “correctness, legality, and propriety” of the original order, not re-evaluating the entire case.
The High Court found that the interim maintenance amount was fair and decided not to change the Family Court’s ruling. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Mahesh Nath Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others
