IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.174 OF 2005 Nek Chandra @ Neki … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents (2) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.214 OF 2005 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents Dated: September 29, 2010 ADVOCATES IN CRLR No.174-05 Sri GC Lakchaura, Advocate for the revisionist Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/Respondent no.1 Sri Omkar Goswami, Adv. for the respondent no.2 ADVOCATES IN CRLR No.214-05 Sri Omkar Goswami, Adv., for the revisionist Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl GA for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Since these revisions are directed against the common judgment and order dated 05.8.2005 and the issue to be decided is also common, as such both are disposed of by this common judgment and order. These criminal revisions, preferred under Sections 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, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 05.08.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, US Nagar in Misc. Crl. Application No.110 of 2003, Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Nek Chandra @ Neki. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 2 In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 17.7.2003 with the allegations that she got married with the revisionist-Nek Chandra @ Neki about 15 years ago as per Hindu RITES and out of the said wedlock, two daughters and two sons born out. However the revisionist-Nek Chandra and his family members were of greedy nature and they started committing cruelty upon her for bringing more dowry and she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and her in-laws due to demand of dowry. Ultimately on 29.7.02 she was ousted by the revisionist and her in-laws. It was also stated by her that she is having no source of income and is, therefore, unable to maintain herself, however her husband- Nek Chandra is having 10 acres of agricultural land and also having five buffaloes and one manure shop, out of which his total monthly income was shown as Rs.20,000/- and as such Rs.10,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by the respondent/wife for maintaining her as well as her four children. The revisionist/husband appeared before the court below and denied the allegations made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties, perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below vide judgment and order dated 05.8.2005 partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife thereby directing the revisionist/ husband to pay Rs.800/- per month to the wife and Rs.200/- per month to each of the four children, till they attain majority, in total Rs.1,600/- per month from the date of application i.e. 17.7.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revisions have been preferred by the husband as well as by the wife for enhancement. About the income of the revisionist is concerned, the respondent/wife stated before the trial court that the revisionist is having some agricultural land. The revisionist pleaded before the trial court that he is a labourer and earns Rs.1500/- per month. The court below, on the basis of the 3 admission of the revisionist/husband himself, rightly held that the revisionist resides in a joint family, his father is having agricultural land and is also having a manure shop, and as such the court below rejected the averment raised by the revisionist/husband that he works simply as labourer and accordingly, the court below, after examining the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, properly determined the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.3,000/- per month and as such, awarded the maintenance i.e. Rs.800/- per month to the wife and Rs.200/- per month each to four children, till they attain majority, in total Rs.1,600/- per month and accordingly passed the impugned order. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below rightly awarded as maintenance to the respondent /wife and her children against the revisionist/husband, which in my view, is perfectly correct and justified and there is no ground to interfere with the said order. Since the Court finds that the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the respondent/wife against the revisionist/husband is correct and justified, therefore, I do not find any good ground to enhance the amount of maintenance. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 05.08.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, US Nagar. For the reasons recorded above, both the revisions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. So far as the arrears, if any, are concerned, the revisionist is directed to pay the same to the respondent/wife @Rs.5000/- per month, in addition to the maintenance amount. Interim order dated 09.09.2005 is accordingly vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) September 29, 2010 Rajeev Dang