IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.206 OF 2007 Smt. Renu Bala … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated: August 3, 2010 Mr. Pramod Belwal, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Additional Family Court Judge, Rishikesh in Case No.25/2004, Smt. Renu Bala Vs. Vikram Singh. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that revisionist was married with respondent no.3 Vikram Singh on 18.5.2003 as per Hindu RITES and her father gave dowry beyond status but soon after the marriage she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the respondent no.3 and his family members due to demand of Rs.2.00 lacs and a Maruti Car in dowry and this attitude also continued during her pregnancy as a result of which she came into depression and on 5.2.2004 her abortion was done. When she again became pregnant, the behaviour of respondent no.3 was more cruel and somehow on 2.10.2004 she somehow came at her parental house and since then she is residing there and having unable to maintain herself. The respondent no.3 and his father have a Furniture Showroom from where monthly income is Rs.50,000/- per month, as such Rs.10,000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The respondent no.3 also filed his written statement and denied the contents made in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Vide judgment and order dated 23.7.2007, the court below allowed the 2 application and directed the respondent no.3 to pay Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to revisionist. Hence this revision by wife for enhancement. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist/wife that the court below awarded meager amount of maintenance. I do not find any force in this argument. The court below held that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of respondent no.3 and it is his responsibility to maintain her properly. The respondent no.3 accepted before the trial court that he works as a carpenter, however no definite income was shown. Even no solid proof of evidence about the income of respondent no.3 was produced before the trial court so as to correctly determine the monthly income. Accordingly the court below held the monthly income of Rs.6000/- (Rs.200 per day) and in that situation, the court below after analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly awarded the monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month against the respondent no.3. Even before this court also, no document has been adduced which could have figured the monthly income of respondent no.3. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the court below rightly awarded the maintenance amount against the respondent no.3 and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 23.07.2007 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 3, 2010 Rajeev Dang