1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2009 Mohd Hassin, S/O Hashik @ Hatam, R/O Mohalla-Jatwars, Jaspur, Thana & Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar ………………………. Applicant Versus Smt. Arifa Sultana, Daughter of Late Shri Sharif, W/O Mohd Haseen, R/O Mohalla Thana Savik Kashipur, Tehsil and Thana Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar …………..Respondent Shri Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate present for the revisionist. Shri. D.N. Sharma, Advocate present for the respondent Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against Judgment and order dated 27.07.2009, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Camp, Kashipur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 132 of 2007, whereby, said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month, to the respondent, under section 125 of Cr.P.C. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2 (3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist Mohd. Haseen got married to respondent Arifa Sultana on 20th of August 1993. Five sons were born out of the wedlock, but they could not survive, and died as infants. It is alleged by the respondent in her application under section 125 of Cr.P.C that the revisionist harassed the respondent for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, and compelled her to leave her husband’s house on 15.05.2007. She has pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself. She has further alleged that the revisionist, who is engaged in transport business, has neglected to maintain the respondent. (4) The revisionist contested the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C and filed his written statement before the trial court. He admitted the marriage with the respondent, and also death of his five sons. However, he denied other allegations in the application. It is pleaded by the revisionist in his written statement that he is simply a driver. He has also denied that the respondent was harassed for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and compelled her to leave her husband house. (5) The trial court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them passed the impugned order whereby the revisionist (husband) was directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month to the respondent (wife), under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Hence this revision. (6) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is a driver and his salary is Rs. 2200/-, per month as 3 such he is unable to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondent drew attention of this court to the statement of PW1 Arifa Sultana and submitted that the revisionist is owner of the three vehicles (Canters) and it is wrong to say that he is simply a driver. However, there is nothing on the record to show to support that the revisionist is owner of the three vehicles. But this has come on the record that the revisionist is engaged in the transport business. Statement of DW1 Mohd Haseen, shows that not only he has left the respondent (wife), he has admitted that he got remarried to another woman on 15 of June 2008. However, it has also come on the record from the evidence of DW1 Mohd Hassin that he has now divorced the respondent, during the pendency of the application. It is pertinent to mention here that assuming for a moment that during the pendency of the application revisionist has got remarried but the respondent has not got remarried, as such as far as his liability to pay the maintenance is concerned he is still liable to pay maintenance to his divorced wife. (7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that the trial court has assessed income at Rs. 5000/- per month in come assessed by the trial court of the revisionist. One of which he has to maintain himself and his second wife. In the circumstances the respondent is entitled at least Rs. 1500/- per month, as maintenance from the revisionist. Considering the economic status of the parties it can not be said that she can maintain herself in an amount less 4 then said amount. Therefore, this revision is disposed of with modification of the impugned order dated 27.07.2009, directing that revisionist to pay Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of application filed before the trial court under section 125 of Cr.P.C. The arrears of the amount are allowed to be paid within a month, where after the monthly payment of Rs. 1500/- per month shall be paid by the 8th of every next month as directed by the trial court. Accordingly the revision stands disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.17.04.2010 NP