IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.226 OF 2008 Ishpal Singh … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Dated: August 6, 2010 Mr. Manish Arora, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Additional Family Court Judge, Roorkee in Case No.58/2005, Smt. Karuna Vs. Ishpal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that revisionist was married with respondent no.2 on 23.6.1987 and out of the said wedlock, three children were born. After some days of marriage, everything was normal but thereafter the revisionist and his family members started harassing the respondent no.2 for getting lesser dowry. The behaviour of the revisionist against the respondent/wife was cruel and he used to oust her from the house, however her parents used to send her back. Ultimately in February 2006 he ousted respondent no.2 and her children from the house and did not come back to take her. Further her parents are the poor persons and unable to maintain the respondent no.2 and her children. On 19.4.2006 the revisionist forcefully took his daughter Antara from the respondent no.2. On the one hand it is stated that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself while on the other hand, the revisionist was shown to be having Flour Mill, agricultural land and also having income by selling milk and total income was shown as Rs.15000/- per month. As such Rs.2000/- for herself and Rs.1500/- for her two sons, in total Rs.3500/- per month was sought as 2 maintenance. The revisionist also filed his written statement before the court below. Vide judgment and order dated 10.7.2007, the court below allowed the application and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1500/- per month (Rs.500/- for herself and Rs.500/- each for her two sons) as maintenance to respondent no.2. Hence this revision. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, the respondent no.2 stated his monthly income as Rs.15000/- per month from various sources. The revisionist appeared before the court below and shown himself to be only a labourer. The court below in this regard has rightly held that even if it is considered that the revisionist is working as labour, in that case also, he is fully capable to maintain his family. Even it is the legal principle of law that a husband has to maintain his wife and his children. The cruelty was also proved being committed by the revisionist upon the respondent no.2 and for this reason also, the court below held that there was sufficient ground for the respondent no.2 to live separately. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below awarded the maintenance. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the court below rightly awarded the maintenance amount against the revisionist and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 6, 2010 Rajeev Dang