IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 608/2006 Pooran Singh Negi …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 20, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. NS Negi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli in Criminal Case No. 5/2004, Smt. Leela Devi v. Pooran Singh Negi and the judgment and order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Revision No. 9/2006, Pooran Singh Negi v. Smt. Leela Devi. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 CrPC with the averments that she got married to the petitioner in the year 1993 as per Hindu rites. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner used to harass and torture her for the dowry and also because of the reason that she was not giving birth to any child. On 26.6.2002, the petitioner taken the respondent no. 2 for treatment but left her in the mid way and, therefore, she had to go to her maternal home. At that time, she was pregnant. She also delivered a girl child in her maternal home who died subsequently. Petitioner never took any pain to know about the well-being of his wife, who was ill and when she went to the house of petitioner, he became very angry and asked her to go. Thereafter she filed an application for her maintenance under Section 125 CrPC stating that she had got no source of livelihood and she was unable to maintain herself whereas the petitioner is a Govt. Servant and working as a Teacher and was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. After hearing both the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli vide his judgment and order dated 8.2.2006 allowed the maintenance application of the respondent no. 2 and awarded her Rs. 5000/- per month towards her maintenance with effect from the date of making the said application. Revision preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 8.2.2006 was partly allowed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli vide his judgment and order dated 18.7.2006 and maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- per month was reduced to Rs. 3000/- per month. Being aggrieved, this criminal miscellaneous application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/revisionist. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 18.7.2006 reveals that the learned revisional court has considered all the aspects and facts and circumstances of the case in entirety. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 has got some other source of livelihood from which she can maintain herself. Furthermore, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he is a Govt. Servant and was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month even in the year 2004, which must have been increased substantially by now. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot shirk from the responsibility of maintaining his wife. Learned revisional court has rightly held that maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 with effect from the date of making the maintenance application would be just and proper and as such, rightly modified the judgment and order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the CJM, Chamoli whereby the respondent no. 2 was granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- from the date of making the application. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 18.7.2006, which is justified and correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 2 Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Criminal Revision No. 9/2006, Pooran Singh Negi v. Smt. Leela Devi is affirmed. Interim order dated 1.8.2006 stands vacated. Arrears of the maintenance amount shall be paid to the respondent no. 2 within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.7.2010 PRABODH 3