IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.01 of 2008 Ubaidur Rahman S/o Maksood Ahmad … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and five others … Respondents Dated: November 10, 2008 Mr. B.M. Pingal, Adv. i/b Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/Respondent No.1 No one appears for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.282 of 2004, Smt. Saira Bano and others Vs. Ubaidur Rehman, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application for maintenance moved by respondent no.2-Smt. Saira Bano and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- each to respondent nos.3 to 6, in total Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of application. It was also directed that the amount already received by respondent nos.4 and 5 towards interim maintenance shall be adjusted from the arrears of maintenance allowance. 2. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Adv. i/b Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. for the revisionist and Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent No.1 are present. No one appears for respondent no.2, though service is reported to be sufficient. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Saira Bano got married with the revisionist on 16.10.1982 as per Muslim rituals. Out of the said wedlock, respondent no.2 gave birth to four children (respondent nos.3 to 6) who were also residing with her. It was also stated that the house in which respondent no.2 was residing is in her name and that house was purchased by her mother. It was also stated that revisionist wanted to get the said house mutated in his name. On her refusal, revisionist started physical harassment of respondent no.2 and her children and he also wanted to sell the said house. It was also stated that on 25.8.2004, revisionist solemnized another marriage and also threatened respondent no.2 to her life. It was further stated that in two rooms of the said house, the respondent no.2 is living along with her children and the other three rooms are in the possession of revisionist and neither he is paying any amount for fooding etc. nor he is maintaining them. It was further stated that she does not perform any work and her children are also dependent on her. On the other hand, revisionist was shown to be a doctor and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Besides this, he was shown to be agent of L.I.C. and earning was shown as Rs.20,000/- per month. Further averment was that the revisionist also runs an institute namely Bhartiya Shiksha Vikas from where also he earns Rs.20,000/- per month. In total, the revisionist was shown to earn Rs.70,000/- per month from all sources. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each for respondent no.2 and her four children, was sought as maintenance against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and also filed his written statement and denied most of the averments of the application moved by respondent no.2. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has awarded excessive amount of maintenance against the revisionist. There is no force in the argument raised by counsel for the revisionist. The revisionist himself admitted in his evidence that at the time of marriage, he was earning Rs.25,000-30,000/- per month. He purchased land in the year 1987 and the house over the said land was constructed in the year 1990. He also stated that he was doing work of L.I.C., however he is not doing said work for last 1-1½ years and also stated that he has opened an institute namely Bharat Shiksha Vikas in which only 10-15 children are studying. Thus, the court below has rightly recorded the finding that the revisionist is trying to under- valuate his income, however he has admitted his income from the profession of Doctor, LIC Agent and income from educational institution. The court below also rightly held that however the revisionist is having second wife, in that condition also, neither the first wife nor her children can be deprived for their maintenance. The revisionist also shown a loan taken by him, however he did not disclose the amount of installment. Even that loan was shown to be taken in the year 1998 and on 31.7.2004, amount of Rs.24,000/- was shown as balance amount. The court below also held that the said loan must have been completed by that time. Thus, after all the aforesaid discussion, the court below rightly held the revisionist to be earning at least Rs.30,000-35,000/- per month. The court below after a detailed analysis also rightly awarded the amount of maintenance allowance from the date of application. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and her children and due to ousting of revisionist for the demand of dowry, she along with her children is compelled to live separately from the revisionist. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife and his children though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife and his children. Thus, the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month each for maintenance of Respondent Nos.3 to 6, in total Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of application. 6. For the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 04.01.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) November 10, 2008 Rajeev Dang