IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.13 of 2006 Bhudev Sharma … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another … Respondents Dated: March 20, 2009 Sri Tapan Singh, Adv. i/b Sri Lokpal Singh, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2005 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.32/2004, Smt. Neeru Vs. Bhudev, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 16.1.2003. 2. I have heard Sri Tapan Singh, Adv. i/b Sri Lokpal Singh, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State and Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Neeru got married with the revisionist on 26.5.1998 as per Hindu RITES. The revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of respondent no.2 and for this reason they started her physical and mental harassment. She informed this matter to her parents on which her parents and some relatives came at the house of revisionist and make them understand. But after the departure of father of respondent no.2, revisionist and his family members again demanded dowry and in the month of November, 1998 they ousted her from the house and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that the revisionist does a job and besides this father of revisionist also owns some agricultural land and he further gets Rs.15-20,000/- per month from an other source. As such an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month was sought as maintenance against the revisionist. The revisionist appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2005 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.12.2005, the revisionist has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the court below has erred in awarding maintenance against the revisionist. I do not find any force in the argument raised by the counsel for the revisionist. The respondent no.2 had stated before the court below that the revisionist earns Rs.15-20,000/- per month. On the contrary, the revisionist produced an income certificate issued by Tehsildar Jhansi as well as the receipt of tenant and copy of ration card on the basis of which the court below came to the conclusion that the revisionist is having sufficient means so as to maintain his wife. Even on 29.11.2004, the court below by way of interim maintenance, directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 which he continued to pay the same in compliance of the order passed by the court below. The court below has rightly held that it is the liability of the revisionist to maintain his legally wedded wife properly. As such, the court below after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2 from the date of application i.e. 16.1.2003. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and due to the reason that she was ousted by 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, though he has got means to maintain her. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2005 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 28.02.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 20, 2009 Rajeev Dang