IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.25 OF 2005 Pramod Kumar S/o Sri Jai Chandra R/o 7/156 B-Purani Sabji Mandi Aulia Road Behind Gurudwara P.S. Rakabganj District Agra U.P. ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Anju W/o Pramod Kumar & another …… Respondents. Dated: July 18, 2008 None appears on behalf of the revisionist. None appears on behalf of respondent no.1. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.2. 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 14.01.2005 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Nainital. 2. List has been revised. There is no representation either on behalf of revisionist or on behalf of respondent no.1. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA is present for respondent no.2. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Smt. Anju moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court, Nainital stating therein that she was married with revisionist Pramod Kumar on 26th May 1997 according to Hindu rituals. The parents of respondent no.1 gave dowry as per their status. But after some days of marriage, the revisionist and his parents started harassing respondent no.1 for demand of dowry and for not fulfilling their demand, they started abusing the parents of respondent no.1 vulgarly and they also started harassing respondent no.1 physically and mentally. Thus, since 03.07.2001 respondent no.1 is living in her parents house at Nainital as she was ousted by revisionist and his family members. It is further averted that respondent no.1 is also having a daughter, who has also been living with her. It is further stated that respondent no.1 has no source of earning and she is totally dependent on her parents and brothers. It is further stated that revisionist is doing business of selling flesh and he earns Rs.45,000/- per month in total. 4. The revisionist also filed his objection to the averments made in the application moved by respondent no.1 and he denied most of the contents of application. 5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 14.01.2005 allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of her daughter-Km. Ayushi, till she attains 18 years of age. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid w.e.f. 29.11.2002. The arrears were also directed to be deposited within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved, by the said judgment and order dated 14.01.2005, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 6. The learned trial court in its judgment has rightly recorded the finding that revisionist-Pramod Kumar was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his profession. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 was an unemployed lady and she was having no source of income and she was totally dependent on her parents. As such the learned trial court has rightly recorded the finding that it was the responsibility of the revisionist to provide the amount of maintenance for respondent no.1 and her daughter. The learned trial court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also after considering the financial position of the revisionist, rightly allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 and also rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/-per month for maintenance of respondent no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of daughter of respondent no.1 w.e.f. 29.11.2002. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital. 8. Therefore, the revision preferred by the revisionist is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 17.02.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. [ (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.7.2008 Rajeev Dang