IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.67 of 2008 Arun Kumar Sharma … Revisionist Versus Smt. Durgesh Sharma and another … Respondents Dated: March 6, 2009 Sri Pawan Mishra, Adv. for the revisionist Sri Ramji Srivastava, Adv. for the respondents HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 27.03.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.23/2002, Smt. Durgesh Sharma and another Vs. Arun Kumar Sharma, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month each to respondent nos.1 and 2, in total Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance, from the date of application. 2. I have heard Sri Pawan Mishra, Adv. for the revisionist and Sri Ramji Srivastava, Adv. for the respondent and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of case are that Respondent-Smt. Durgesh Sharma moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. on 03.07.2002 with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 18.11.1995 as per Hindu RITES and out of the said wedlock, a son-Shubham Sharma (respondent no.2) born out. She further stated that she remained in her-laws for about 18 months where the revisionist and his family members were physically and mentally harassing her for the demand of dowry and due to the mal-treatment of revisionist and has family members, she is forced to live at her parental house and no maintenance was given to her by the revisionist. As such she moved an application for maintenance of herself and her child. On that application, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun vide its judgment and order dated 20.2.1999 directed the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs.400/- each to respondent nos.1 and 2, in total Rs.800/- per month against the revisionist. She further stated that the revisionist gets Rs.8,000/- towards salary as he works as Hawaldar Major in the Army in Indian Army. Further, she is an unemployed lady and having no source of income and, therefore, is unable to maintain herself and her child. It was further stated that inflation rate is also higher. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- each was sought as maintenance by respondent no.1 on behalf of herself and her child (respondent no.2) against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide its judgment and order dated 27.03.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Sri Pawan Mishra, Adv. for the revisionist submitted that the court below has erred by awarding excessive maintenance amount against the revisionist. I do not find any force in the argument raised by counsel for the revisionist as the court below has recorded a finding that the revisionist is a retired man from the Army. The revisionist at the time of retirement received Rs.86,745/- towards retirement gratuity. Besides this, the revisionist also got Rs.1,64,541/- towards selling the pension. Besides this, the revisionist did not disclose any fact about the G.P.F. and other funds. Thus, the court below rightly reached to the conclusion that certainly the revisionist must have received more than Rs.5.00-6.00 lacs at the time of retirement. The court below has also rightly recorded a finding that the revisionist has not got any other expenditure and this amount must have been invested in a Fixed Deposit and in any case, the revisionist must be getting Rs.4000-5000 per month. Further, the revisionist has not disclosed about the Dearness Allowance on the Pension disclosed by the revisionist. Besides this the revisionist also owns a garden of Litchi. Thus, the court below after analyzing the above-said position of the case, rightly determined the monthly income of revisionist as Rs.8,000/- per month and as such has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondents against the revisionist as discussed above. 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent No.1-Smt. Durgesh Sharma is unable to maintain herself and her child and due to reason that she was ousted by revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife 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. 7. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 16.04.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 6, 2009 Rajeev Dang