IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.204 OF 2008 Lalit S/o Mahendra R/o Village Bharapur Bhauri, P.S. Bahadarbad, District-Haridwar ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Sonu & another …... Respondents Dated: April 29, 2009 None is present for the revisionist Sri Bhuvnesh Johsi, Adv. bolding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, 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 23.08.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.152/2004, Smt. Sonu & another Vs. Lalit, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.1/wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month each for maintenance of respondent nos.1 and 2 (in total Rs.2,000/- per month), from the date of order. 2. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sonu moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the 2 revisionist with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 18.2.2002 as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage, her father had spent Rs.2.00 Lacs and gave items beyond his status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and for this reason they used to harass her. On this, her father gave Rs.20,000/- to the revisionist due to which the revisionist and his family members remained quite for some days but then they made a demand of scooter in dowry. Her father showed his inability to give the same but the revisionist and his family members continued their demand. In the month of March, when she was pregnant, the revisionist and his family members ousted her from the house for the demand of dowry. Then she came to her parental house and told the entire incident to her father. Thereafter, her father along with his relatives went to her in-laws house and tried to persuade them and also requested them to keep her daughter. On this, her in-laws kept her. On 6.4.2004, the revisionist and his family members tried to kill her. Then somehow her father and villagers saved her life and brought her Jawalapur where her medical examination was done and a complaint in this regard was also filed. It was also stated that out of the said wedlock one daughter Km. Hariganga was born on 9.6.2004 and its entire expenses were borne by her father. It was also stated that the revisionist is a skilled technician of electronic items and works on contract in different companies, from where he earns about Rs.12,000/- per month. Besides this, the revisionist has 22 Bigha land from where also he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent no.1/wife is having no source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her daughter/respondent no.2. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month each (in 3 total Rs.8,000/- per month) for maintenance of respondent nos.1 & 2 was sought by the respondent no.1 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He has admitted the fact of marriage with the respondent no.1 and also a daughter born out from their wedlock but has denied rest of the averments made in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 23.08.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. The present revision has been assailed solely on the ground that the amount of maintenance as awarded by the court below against the revisionist is excessive. The respondent no.1/wife has stated in her application that the revisionist is a skilled technician and works on contract in different companies from where he gets Rs.12,000/- per month. Besides this, she has also stated that he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month by way of his 22 Bigha land. However, no reliable evidence was produced by the respondent no.1 in support of that averment. In this regard, the court below has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist, in his written statement, has stated that he does work of labour but during his evidence in the court below, he has stated that he is doing diploma from Polytechnic, Narendra Nagar. As such, the court below rightly recorded that the revisionist is deliberately hiding his income in order to 4 get rid of the amount of maintenance. Thus, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the financial status of the revisionist, the court below rightly awarded Rs.1,000/- per month each as maintenance amount to be given to the respondents against the revisionist from the date of order. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.1-Smt. Sonu is unable to maintain herself and her daughter and due to the reason that she was ousted by revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry, she alongwith her daughter is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. Therefore, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondents for their maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 23.08.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the aforesaid order. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 29, 2009 RG