IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 68 OF 2008 Mohd. Kamil S/o Jahid Hussain, R/o village Daud Basi, Police Station Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar. ……… Revisionist Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand 2.Smt. Sabnam W/o Mohd. Kamil, D/o Anwar Ahmad R/o village Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. .……….Respondents Dated: October 17 , 2008 Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Sri Mohd. Safdar, Adv. for the respondent no. 2. 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(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in case no. 24 of 2007 Smt. Sabnam and others vs. Mohd. Kamil, whereby the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee allowed the application of the wife/respondent no.2 moved by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife/respondent no.2 from the date of order i.e. from 28.02.2008. It is further directed that out of this amount the petitioner shall be entitled to received Rs. 1,500/- and the minor daughter Mahak Rani shall be entitled to receive Rs. 500/- and the petitioner shall be entitled to get the awarded sum in favour of the minor. 2. Heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Sri Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 2 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 Smt. Shabnam moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Mohd. Kamil for award of maintenance with the averments inter-alia that NIKAH in between the revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 10.03.2006 in accordance with the Muslim rites. However, soon after the marriage the revisionist and his family members have started harassing her for their demand of dowry. They demanded to fetch a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a Maruti Car as dowry and on being her failure, they started beating her and she was subjected to cruelty. Thereafter, in a PANCHAYAT, her father gave a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the revisionist but in regard to the Maruti Car, inability was shown. On 1/2.07.2006 her father-in-law tried to commit illicit relations with her. Once her life was also put in danger by the revisionist and his family members. On 20.07.2006 when her father and brother came to know about her at her in-laws house, they were also insulted and on the same day she was ousted by the revisionist from his house. At that time she was pregnant. From that day she is residing with her parental house, the revisionist did not pay any heed towards her and towards the newborn daughter. On one hand the petitioner is unemployed; she has no means of livelihood; she herself and her daughter are now dependent on her parents; while on the other hand the revisionist does whitewashing and varnishing work on contract basis. Besides it he owns 30-35 Bighas of agricultural land. Thus, from all resources he earns a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The applicant demanded maintenance for herself and for her daughter. Refuting the averments made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he refuted the allegations of demand of dowry. He denied the income shown by the applicant and submitted that he is a labour and earns a meager sum; he had no any agricultural land. Thereafter both the parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Trial 3 Court vide his judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 allowed the application of the wife/respondent no.2 moved by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife/respondent no.2 from the date of order i.e. from 28.02.2008. It is further directed that out of this amount the petitioner shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and the minor daughter Mahak Rani shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 500/- and the petitioner shall be entitled to get the awarded sum in favour of the minor. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties have consented that the parties have entered into a compromise outside the court and the matter has been settled amicably in between the parties. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, the revisionist is agree to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs. 5,00/- per month to the daughter-Mahak Rani, through her mother-respondent no.2, as maintenance, from the date of order i.e. from 28.02.2008. 5. Accordingly, the revision is decided in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the parties. Consequently, the revisionist is directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs. 5,00/- per month to the daughter-Mahak Rani, through her mother-respondent no.2 (in all Rs. 1,500/- per month), as maintenance, from the date of order i.e. from 28.02.2008. 6. Interim order dated 17.04.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.10.2008 NCM 4