IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.110 of 2006 Sukhvinder Singh S/o Tejpal … Revisionist Versus Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and two others … Respondents Dated: October 22, 2008 Sri Rajendra Singh, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 Sri L.K. Tewari, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 12.04.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.06/2004, Smt. Sunita and another Vs. Sukhvinder Singh, whereby the respondent has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to Respondent No.2-wife and Rs.500/- per month to Respondent No.3-daughter, in total Rs.1,500/- per month, as maintenance allowance from the date of application. 2. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/ Respondent No.1 and Sri L.K. Tewari, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the entire material available in the file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent No.2- Smt. Sunita moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 27.04.2002 as per Hindu RITES and the parents of respondent no.2 gave sufficient dowry in the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.2 for getting lesser dowry which started increasing day by day. When the parents of respondent no.2 came to know about this, then they took respondent no.2 at Mussorrie, however the revisionist and his family members did not pay any heed towards her nor they paid anything for her maintenance. On 25.5.2003, she gave birth to a girl, however nobody had come from the family of revisionist either to take respondent no.2 or her daughter. On 21.8.2003, due to persuasion of some respectable persons, she again came at her in-laws house with the assurance of revisionist and his family members that they would not commit any harassment upon respondent no.2. However, after sometime again the same practice was adopted by the revisionist and his family members and she was again being harassed for demand of dowry. On 21.10.2003, parents of respondent no.2 somehow managed to take respondent no.2 out of the house of revisionist and then she was taken to Mussoorie back and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that the revisionist is having his own business from where he earns Rs.4,000/- per month and besides this, he also possess some agricultural land from where he earns Rs.3,000/- per month and in total he earns Rs.7,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month (Rs.1,000/- for herself and Rs.1,000/- for her daughter) was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2 against her husband-revisionist. The revisionist-husband also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement to the application moved by respondent no.2 and denied the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by court below is excessive. I do not find any force in the argument raised by counsel for the revisionist. In the present case, the respondent no.2 has stated in her application moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that the revisionist earns Rs.7,000/- per month i.e. Rs.4,000/- out of the business and Rs.3,000/- out of the agricultural land. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and also filed his written statement. However, the court below after perusing the report of Tehsildar reached to the conclusion that the revisionist has no income out of the agricultural land. The revisionist also stated before the court below that he is a labourer. The court below even considering the revisionist to be a labourer, rightly determined the monthly income of the revisionist to be Rs.3000/- per month. Hence, the court below rightly reached to the conclusion that the revisionist is responsible to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2-wife and Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.3-daughter, in total Rs.1,500/- per month. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself & her daughter and due to harassment of 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 in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance. It is the legal and moral responsibility of the revisionist to maintain his wife and daughter. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 12.4.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 10.07.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.10.2008 Rajeev Dang