IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 139 OF 2008 Joga Ram S/o Sri Til Ram, R/o village Faras Ram Pur, P.S. Chorgaliya, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Kaushalya Tamta W/o Sri Joga Ram, 2. Km. Sumita Tamta D/o Sri Joga Ram, Both R/o G.I.C. Campus Sitarganj, P.S. Sitarganj, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. …….Respondents Dated: October 20, 2008 None for the revisionist, None for 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 10.06.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case no. 104 of 2006 Smt. Kaushalya Tamta and another vs. Sri Joga Ram, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife- respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife- respondent no.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the minor Km. Sumita-respondent no.2 till her attaining the age of majority/ till she is unmarried (total Rs. 3,000/- per month) from the date of filing the application i.e. 22.05.2006 by 8th of every month. It is further directed the amount of interim maintenance already paid shall be adjusted. 2. None is present for the parties. I have perused the impugned order and have also gone through the material available on the record. 2 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent Smt. Kaushalya moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Joga Ram for award of maintenance for herself and for respondent no.2 Km. Sumita Tamta with the averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.1 was solemnized 38 years before. It is stated that the revisionist started hating her and she was subjected to cruelty on account of continuous birth of daughters born out of this wedding. He also neglected the daughters born out of this wedding. He remarried with another lady Smt. Meena Devi and three sons were born. The second wife also started maltreatment towards her. Due to the prestige of the family, she did not start any legal action. She anyhow managed marriage of six daughters but two daughters are still unmarried. On 21.04.2006 she was beaten by the revisionist and on being instigated by the second wife she alongwith two daughters were removed by the revisionist from his house on their wearing clothes with the threats not to return again. She reached at Sitarganj at the in-laws house of one of her daughter, namely Smt. Tulsi, and started living with her, but the revisionist reached there on 18.05.2006 and he threatened her to leave Sitarganj at once. It is stated that the petitioner alongwith her two unmarried daughters is living at Sitarganj with the family of her another daughter Smt. Tulsi, who are unable to maintain them. The petitioner and her daughters are suffering from ailments; their treatment is going on; the petitioner is not able to maintain her and the daughters. The revisionist is a Contractor in PWD since 10 years, besides it he owns 5 Acres of agricultural land and from all resources he earns a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month. He demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month each for herself and the youngest daughter-respondent no.2. In regard to another unmarried daughter Km. Sangeeta, who is studying in High School, it is stated that a separate case is being filed for her maintenance. Refuting the averments 3 made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he refused that he had remarried. He never committed cruelty towards the petitioner or his daughters. He never ousted them from his house. The petitioner on her own is residing at Sitarganj in the house of his another daughter Smt. Tulsi. The revisionist is ready to keep the petitioner and his daughters. It is stated that his wife has alternative source of income and she is capable to maintain herself and the daughters. Both the parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned trial court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2008 allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist- husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife-respondent no.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the minor Km. Sumita-respondent no.2 till her attaining the age of majority/ till she is unmarried (total Rs. 3,000/- per month) from the date of filing the application i.e. 22.05.2006 by 8th of every month. It is further directed the amount of interim maintenance already paid shall be adjusted. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. The impugned judgment and order has been assailed on the ground that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration, the written statement of the revisionist. The respondent-wife has alternative source of income and she is able to maintain herself and the daughters. Further the income of the revisionist is not proved by the petitioner and without proving the income, the maintenance cannot be awarded. But on perusal of the order of the trial court it reveals that the court below has reached to the conclusion that the revisionist has concealed his second marriage. So far the marriage in between the revisionist and the petitioner is concerned the marriage is 4 admitted. On one hand the revisionist has admitted that he has three sons, but in his affidavit he affirmed on oath that neither he remarried nor he has sons. Thus, the revisionist has stated contradictory version. The petitioner has proved, through her evidence, that on account of continuous birth of daughters the revisionist had remarried with one lady Smt. Meena Devi who gave birth to three sons. After the remarriage and after birth of three sons she was subjected to cruelty and on the instigation of the second wife she alongwith her two daughters was removed by the revisionist from his house. Further no evidence is produced in regard to the alternative source of income of the respondent-wife. The wife-respondent no.1 has proved that the revisionist owns agricultural land, moreover the revisionist has not refused that he is a contractor. It reveals that after the respondents were ousted, the revisionist did not pay any heed towards them. He neglected them to get rid of paying maintenance. The revisionist has the responsibility to maintain her wife and the children. It is proved that the revisionist has sufficient source of income, therefore considering the entire facts and circumstances, the trial court has rightly directed the revisionist to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife-respondent no.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the minor Km. Sumita-respondent no.2 till her attaining the age of majority/ till she is unmarried (total Rs. 3,000/- per month) from the date of filing the application i.e. 22.05.2006 by 8th of every month. Hence, the learned court below after 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 10.06.2008. 5 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 24.07.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.10.2008 NCM