IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 52 OF 2008 Sushil Kumar Awasthi ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others. .……….Respondents Dated: October 13 , 2008 Sri Tapan Singh, holding brief of Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Sri L.K. Tewari, holding brief of Sri J.P. Joshi, Adv. for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred 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 20.02.2008 passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh Dehradun in Misc. Case no. 49 of 2007 Smt. Alpana Awasthi and another vs. Sushil Kumar Awasthi, whereby the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh allowed the application of the wife/respondent no.2 moved by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month to the wife/respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month to the son/respondent no.3 from the date of application by 10th of each month. It is further directed that the amount of interim maintenance already paid shall be adjusted. 2. Heard Sri Tapan Singh, holding brief of Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 and Sri L.K. Tewari, holding brief of Sri J.P.Joshi, Adv. for the respondent nos. 2 &3 and perused the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 Smt. Alpana Awasthi moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against 2 the revisionist Sushil Kumar Awasthi for award of maintenance for herself and her son with the averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 21.11.2003 in accordance with the Hindu rites. In the marriage a good dowry was given beyond status, but the revisionist was not satisfied with the dowry. He started neglecting her and giving her abuses soon after the marriage. At the time of birth of his son she was sent to her parental house but all alone. After the birth of her son her brother brought her to the revisionist’s house but thereafter she was subjected to cruelty. The revisionist demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac as dowry but on her failure to fetch the demanded dowry, the revisionist on 16.06.2007 ousted her from his house in her wearing clothes. On 18th June 2007 the revisionist came to her parental house, but he refused to bring her or her son with him. On one hand the applicant is unemployed; she has no means of livelihood; she has to educate her son and has to maintain her and her son, while on the other hand, the revisionist is employed as a Machine Operator in Q.H.Talbros Company Ltd. Guargaon, Hariyana from where he receives a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as salary. The applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month for herself and a sum or Rs. 5,000/- per month for her son as maintenance. Refuting the averments made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he refuted the allegations of demand of dowry. It is stated that he had fulfilled all the requirements of the applicant. He denied the income shown by the applicant. It is stated that the revisionist has invested in the Life Insurance policy schemes in the name of the applicant. Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Trial Court vide his judgment and order dated 20.02.2008 partly allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist- husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month to the 3 wife/respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month to the son/respondent no.3 from the date of application by 10th of each month. It is further directed that the amount of interim maintenance already paid shall be adjusted. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise outside the court and the matter has been settled amicably in between the parties. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, the revisionist is agree to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the son-respondent no.3 through his mother respondent no.2 (in all Rs. 3,000/- per month) from the date of the application. 5. Accordingly, the revision is decided in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the parties. Consequently, the revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the son-respondent no.3 through his mother-respondent no.2 (in all Rs. 3,000/- per month) by 10th of each month as maintenance from the date of application. Further the amount already paid, as interim maintenance, shall be adjusted. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.10.2008 NCM