RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 18 OF 2007 Balwant Singh S/o Gopal Singh, R/o Askaripur, Tehsil Noorpur, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor (U.P.). ……… Revisionist Versus 1.Smt. Radha Devi w/o Balwant Singh D/o late Sri Shiv Dutt Sharma, 2.Kailash Chandra S/o Balwant Singh, C/o his real mother Smt. Radha Devi, R/o Mohalla Lakhanpur Chowk, Opposite Shaheed Smarak, Ramnagar, Nainital. .……….Respondents Dated: August 21 , 2008 Sri Abdul Wahid, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 04.05.2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Crl. Case no. 6 of 2003 Smt. Radha Devi and another vs. Balwant Singh, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent and directed the revisionist- husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife-respondent no.1 and Rs. 250/- per month to his son Master Kailash-respondent no.2 till his attaining the age of 18 years’, through his mother, from the date of filing the application i.e. 17.01.2003. It is further directed that the arrears in lieu thereof be paid within 30 days. 2 2. Heard Sri Abdul Wahid, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent Smt. Radha Devi moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Balwant Singh for award of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 500/- per month for her son-Master Kailash Chandra with the averments inter- alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 06.12.2000 in accordance with the Hindu rites. It is stated that soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started taunting her for less dowry and she was subjected to cruelty due to demand of dowry. The revisionist had kept her at Kashipur where she was abused, beaten and maltreated. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded as dowry and due to this demand on 19.03.2001 she was further abused and beaten. During her pregnancy she was ousted by the revisionist from his residential house at Kashipur. The revisionist did not pay any head towards her nor he paid any maintenance. On being persuaded, she was again taken Kashipur, but within a week of her reaching at Kashipur on 30.05.2001 she was again ousted from the house during her pregnancy, only in her wearing cloths. It is averted that revisionist earns a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month, out of which he can easily pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month 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 the petitioner herself left the house. Although, he went to take her back but she refused to return. It is stated that he is ready to keep her with him. It is stated that he does labour work. Both the parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Trial Court vide his judgment and order dated 04.05.2004 3 allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent-wife and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife-respondent no.1 and Rs. 250/- per month to his son Master Kailash-respondent no.2 till his attaining the age of 18 years’, through his mother, from the date of filing the application i.e. 17.01.2003. It is further directed that the arrears in lieu thereof be paid within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration, the written statement of the revisionist in which he has stated that he is ready to keep his wife with him. It is argued that the revisionist has no permanent source of income and he is a labour. It is argued that the respondent-wife has alternative source of income as she is serving in a School. Refuting the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondent-wife has sufficient reasons to live separately from her husband, as she was ousted during her pregnancy. One child was born out of the wedlock that too in the parental house of the wife and after she was ousted, no heed was paid towards her. Further no evidence is produced in regard to the alternative source of income of the respondent-wife. On perusal of the order of the trial Court, the court below has also reached to the conclusion that when the wife-respondent was ousted from the house she was pregnant. During her pregnancy she was beaten and abused also and no financial support was provided by the revisionist during her pregnancy. The trial court has fully considered the petition as also the written objection of the revisionist while passing the order impugned. The Court below arrived to the conclusion that there is no reasonable cause to disbelieve the version of the petitioner in which she has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry, therefore she has sufficient and reasonable grounds to live separately from her husband. Though the 4 revisionist had declined his income as Rs. 5,000/- per month, but no doubt from the labour work his income would be Rs. 3,000/- per month and he can easily pay the sum awarded by the trial Court as maintenance to the respondents. Thus, the trial Court has rightly directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to his wife and Rs. 250/- per month to his son-respondent no.2 as maintenance. Hence, the learned court below after considering the evidence available on the record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order impugned, which does not warrant interference at this stage. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 04.05.2004. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 14.02.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 21.08.2008 NCM