IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.115 of 2006 Sunil Bhatt … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another … Respondents Dated: October 17, 2008 No one appears either for revisionist or for Respondent No.2 Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 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 judgment and order dated 15.05.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Crl. Case No.440/2002, Smt. Nirmala Bhatt Vs. Sunil Bhatt, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent No.2. 2. List has been revised. No one appears either for revisionist or for Respondent No.2. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 is present. Perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent No.2- Smt. Nirmala Bhatt moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. stating therein that she is an old and infirm lady and is unable to maintain herself. It was also stated that the revisionist is the son of respondent no.2 and he does private work from which he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. It was also stated that she gave birth to the revisionist out of her own womb and maintained her till he grown up. It was also stated that the revisionist is living in Mussoorrie and earns sufficiently. However, he did not pay any heed towards her nor he paid any amount for her maintenance. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also filed his objection against the application moved by respondent no.2 and stated that he has been living with his ‘BUA’ Smt. Bhagwati Devi, who got him grow up. He also denied that he earns Rs.10,000/- per month and even he has denied his job. It was further stated that the respondent no.2 is not the wife of his father. It was also stated that she is living with one Pancham and he is maintaining her. There are three more sons and one daughter of the respondent no.2. The daughter has been married but they were not made the parties and no maintenance was claimed from them. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 15.5.2006 allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist has filed the present revision. 4. The present revision has been assailed mainly on the ground that the court below has wrongly awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The court below in this regard has rightly recorded a finding that income of the revisionist was shown to be Rs.10,000/- per month, however no documentary evidence for proving the same was filed by respondent no.2. Even the revisionist did not show his income in his evidence. He has stated in his evidence that he is unable to maintain himself and he is being maintained by his ‘BUA’. However, the court below has rightly not accepted this finding and has rightly recorded a finding that the revisionist is a man of 21 years and it is his moral and legal obligation to maintain his mother. As such, the court below after taking the minimum income of revisionist to be Rs.3,000/- per month, rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to his mother-respondent no.2. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2, being an old and infirm lady, is unable to maintain herself. However, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his mother in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.5.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 18.07.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.10.2008 Rajeev Dang