IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.13 OF 2007 Love Kumar Sharma ……… Revisionist Versus Additional Family Judge, Roorkee and another ..…... Respondents Dated: August 9, 2010 Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent no.1 Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2 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 9.1.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.30 of 2006, Smt. Pratigya v. Love Kumar Sharma, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the case. The revisionist was also directed to pay amount of arrears to respondent no.2 in six equal installments. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Pratigya moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court, Roorkee against the revisionist stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 11.5.2005 as per Hindu rites. Her father spent about Rs.5.00 Lacs in the marriage, however, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and after the marriage they started demanding Rs.2.50 Lacs and a car, in dowry. On her refusal, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. On 2.10.2005, the revisionist and his family members asked her to fulfill their aforesaid demands and on her refusal, they committed marpeet with her and ousted her from the house. After persuading the revisionist and his family members, her father and brother left her at her matrimonial house. Thereafter on 20.12.2005, her father and brother came to know about her well-being. On that day, the revisionist and his family members again made their aforesaid demands. When her father showed his inability to give the same, the revisionist committed marpeet with respondent no.2 and thereafter ousted her from the house. It is alleged that since 20.12.2005, she is residing at her parental house. It is further stated that she does not know any knitting or sewing work and is therefore unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it is stated that the revisionist is posted as Storekeeper in Irrigation Department, Roorkee and earns Rs.8,000/- per month. Besides this, he also lent money on interest and from all these sources, he earns Rs.18,000/- per month. With these averments, an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He admitted his marriage with respondent no.2 and also the fact that he is working in Irrigation Department but has denied rest of the averments made in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist argued that the amount of maintenance as awarded by court below is excessive. I do not find any force in this argument. Respondent no.2/wife has levelled a charge against the revisionist that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the revisionist for the demand of dowry and she has been ousted by the revisionist for the same. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the revisionist has himself admitted before the court below that he is getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month after deductions. In this regard, the court below has rightly held that the revisionist is posted as Storekeeper and is getting Rs.5,135/- per month after deductions. 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.2,000/- per month as maintenance amount to be given to the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting by revisionist for the demand of dowry, she 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 her. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent no.2 for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 9.1.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 24.1.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 9, 2010 RG