IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.27 of 2005 Aman Panchal S/o Rajpal R/o 4649/113, New Mardern, Shahadara, Delhi … Revisionist Versus Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun & another … Respondents Dated: July 10, 2008 None appears for the revisionist Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State None appears for Respondent No.2-Smt. Rashmi HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 21.12.2004 passed by Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh in Case No.2 of 2004, whereby the learned Additional Family Judge has awarded interim maintenance @Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the Respondent No.2- Smt. Rashmi against the revisionist. 2. No on appears either on behalf of revisionist or on behalf of Respondent No.2. However, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Additional G.A. is present for Respondent No.1. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.2-Smt. Rashmi moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Family Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, stating therein that she was married with the revisionist on 17.2.2002 as per Hindu customs. The parents of respondent no.2 gave dowry more than their status and spent Rs.6.00 lacs in marriage. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the demand of dowry and due to this reason, they started committing harassment on her physically and mentally. It was further stated that since 15.5.2004, she was residing at Rishikesh with her parents due to the bad attitude of revisionist and his family members for demand of dowry. It was also stated in the application that she is having no source of income, as she is an unemployed lady and is unable to maintain herself and she is totally dependent on her retired father. It was also averted that revisionist is a graduate engineer posted as Marketing Executive in a Multinational company and out of this profession, he earns Rs.15,000/- per months. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.7,5000/- was sought as interim maintenance by respondent No.2. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by respondent no.2 and denied the averments made in the application moved by respondent no.2. After considering the entire facts and circumstances, the learned Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, vide his order dated 21.12.2004 allowed the application moved by Respondent No.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Respondent No.2. Against the said order dated 21.12.2004, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Additional G.A. for the State argued that the present revision has been preferred against the order of interim maintenance, which is an interlocutory order and against the interlocutory order, the revision is not maintainable. He further submitted that the learned court below after considering the financial position of revisionist, has rightly allowed the application and rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 by the 10th of each month. 5. In the present case, the revisionist is an Electronic Engineer and was posted in a Multinational Company and Respondent No.2 also stated in her application that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. On the other hand, respondent no.2 is an unemployed lady and is unable to maintain herself and revisionist is intentionally neglecting her in order to get rid of amount of interim maintenance. Therefore, the learned court below rightly allowed the application and rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent no.2. As such, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order dated 21.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the criminal revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 03.03.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 10, 2008 Rajeev Dang