Firoz Malik Vs State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary Dehradun

UKHC010014732022

2026:UHC:5895

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/69/2022 Firoz Malik ……Revisionist Versus
			State Of Uttarakhand Through Its Secretary Dehradun …………Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sachin and Mr. Mohd. Aamir, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
			3. Mr. Kaushal Pandey and Mr. Mehboob Rahi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 4. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-I, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby the application preferred by respondent nos.2 and 3 was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of ₹2,000/- per month to respondent no.2 (wife) and₹3,000/- per month to respondent no.3 (minor daughter). 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the marriage between the revisionist and respondent no.2was solemnized on08.11.2014 in

¶4

UKHC010014732022

¶5

2026:UHC:5895

¶6

accordance with Muslim rites and
customs; that, out of the said wedlock,
one daughter, namely respondent no.3,
was born; that, due to some
matrimonial discord, respondent no.2
started residing separately along with
the minor daughter and thereafter
instituted proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance; that,
the learned Family Court has partly
allowed the said application by the
impugned judgment and order.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would further submit that the
impugned judgment and order are
contrary to the facts and settled
principles of law; that, the learned
Family Court has failed to properly
appreciate the evidence available on
record and has placed undue reliance
upon the testimonies of interested
witnesses produced by respondent
no.2; that, the financial condition and
earning capacity of the revisionist have
not been duly considered, inasmuch as
the revisionist is only a seasonal
labourer having irregular and meagre
income; that, the maintenance awarded
is disproportionate to the earning
capacity of the revisionist and the
impugned order has been passed in a
routine and mechanical manner
without proper appreciation of the
material available on record. Hence, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3
would submit that the learned Family
Courthas passed theimpugned order

¶7

UKHC010014732022

¶8

2026:UHC:5895

¶9

after due appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties; that, despite the maintenance order, the revisionist has failed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Family Court and has not paid any maintenance to respondent nos.2 and 3. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by this Court directing the personal appearance of the revisionist and respondent no.2, respondent no.2 has appeared before this Court, whereas the revisionist has chosen to remain absent without any sufficient cause. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that he had duly informed the revisionist about the order of this Court requiring his personal appearance; however, despite such intimation, the revisionist has failed to appear before the Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Family Court has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly awarded maintenance to respondent no.2 (wife) and respondent no.3 (minor daughter). The amount awarded is just and reasonable, keeping in view the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. . It is well settled that a husband is under a legal as well as moral obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife and minor child.

¶10

UKHC010014732022

¶11

2026:UHC:5895

¶12

The revisionist has neither appeared
before this Court despite being informed through his counsel nor complied with the maintenance order passed by the court below. 12. The revisionist has failed to show any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity in the impugned order. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence unless the findings are shown to be perverse or illegal. No ground for interference is made out. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 16.07.2026 Mamta
MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e4 30ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68 911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.20 12:20:13 +05'30'

Firoz Malik v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Malik v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sabiya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jot Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kanwar Singh Yadav Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ramesh Chand Chaudhary Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rahul Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand