HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 15 of 2006 Nasim S/o Nooru, R/o village Hassanpur, P.O. Naya Gaun Peliyon, P.S. Sahaspur, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand, 2.Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, 3.Smt. Rabia W/o Sri Nasim D/o Sri Sabir, R/o village Dhakra, P.S. Vikash Nagar, District Dehradun. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist or for the private respondent. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Dated: August 6, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Crl. Case no. 147 of 2004 Smt. Rabia vs. Nasim by which the petition filed by the respondent no.3-wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was party allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance allowance from the date of order. 2. List has been revised, but none has responded either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondent no.3. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record as well as the order impugned. 3. From perusal of the record is reveals that the respondent no.3 Rabiya moved an application before the Trial Court against the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the request to award maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. It appears that the Smt. Rabiya was married with the revisionist Sri Naseem on 2 28.06.2002 in accordance with Muslim rites. After the marriage the respondent-wife was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry to fetch Rs. 50,000/-. When the demand was not fulfilled, the respondent-wife was ousted from the house by her in-laws on 12.07.2003. It is further stated that the applicant-wife has no source of income, while the opposite party-husband was alleged to be doing furniture work and is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The revisionist-husband did not file any objection before the Trial Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Trial Court vide his order dated 03.01.2006 partly allowed the petition filed by the wife-respondent no.3 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance allowance from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Court below it reveals that the Court below has reached to the conclusion that the revisionist has conceded that he has married again to look after his two minor children. In these circumstances, there are sufficient reasons to the respondent- wife to live separately. The Trial Court also considered the financial condition of the parties. On one hand the respondent- wife has no means of livelihood to maintain herself, while on the other hand minimum income of the revisionist has been assessed to Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thus, by not paying any heed towards the respondent-wife and by avoiding maintenance to her, itself proves the negligent conduct on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist could not show that the respondent- wife has alternative source of income. Therefore, while allowing party the application of the respondent-wife u/ 125 Cr.P.C. and directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 750/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance allowance from the date of order, the Trial Court has not committed any manifest error of 3 law. In my opinion, the order impugned is reasonable and does not warrant any interference at this stage. 5. Otherwise also on a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 06.08.2008 NCM: