HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 30 of 2004 Sanjay Kumar Shashi. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus Smt. Vasundhara Aryani. ------- Respondents Sri Kailash Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist, None for respondent. Dated: 6th May 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the 28.01.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in criminal case no. 338 of 2003 Smt. Vasundhara vs. Sanjay Kumar, whereby the learned Judge Family Court has allowed the application 7/Ka moved by the respondent and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of application i.e. from 23.12.2003. It is further directed that the amount so ordered be paid by 10th of every month and the first installment be paid by 10th of February 2004. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that the respondent-wife filed a petition no. 338/2003 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist before the Court below with the averments that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist on 21.04.2000 according to the Hindu rituals. Soon after the marriage the revisionist has started taunting her for the dowry given in the marriage. After she was ousted by the revisionist from his house, he did not pay any penny for her maintenance, rather he filed suit for divorce. The respondent is residing in her parental house and she has no source of income whatsoever. The revisionist is posted in ONGC, Dehradun and he earns Rs. 45,000/- per month as salary. She demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the revisionist as interim maintenance. The respondent-wife has also moved an application no. 7/Ka on 23.12.2003 for granting her interim maintenance from the revisionist. On the other hand, refuting the contents of the application, revisionist filed objection to the application no. 7/Ka, with the averments that she is being paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as per the directions given in the suit filed u/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act. Income of the revisionist has been shown contradictory. Hence the applicant is not entitled for further interim maintenance. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Court below passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2004. Aggrieved with this order the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 3. I have heard Sri Kailash Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist. None is present for the respondent. 4. During the course of arguments Sri Kailash Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated, at bar, that the matter has finally been decided by the Trial Court and now the revision has rendered infructuous. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun dated 28.01.2004, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being infructuous. Interim order dated 25th February 2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: