IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 55 OF 2006 Vikas Singh S/o Sri Fateh Singh, R/o house no. A-121 Vijay Nagar, Sector-11, Ghaziabad, Presently at Baghu Bye pass Vijay Nagar, P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. ……… Revisionist Versus 1. The Judge Family Court, Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar), 2. Smt. Kanchan W/o Sri Vikas Kumar, D/o late Sri Jagdish Saran, R/o Gali No. 3, Indira Colony, Rudrapur (U.S.Nagar), 3. Manu (Minor) S/o Sri Vikas Kumar, Through its Guardian Mother Smt. Kanchan, R/o Gali No. 3, Indira Colony, Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar). …….Respondents Dated: October 24, 2008 None for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for the State. Sri P.S. Rawat, Adv. for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 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 28.02.2006 passed by Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Crl. Case no. 30 of 2005 Kanchan and other vs. Vikas, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has partly allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 and a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the son-respondent no.3 from the date of filing the application i.e. 23.02.2005 by the last day of each month. It is further directed that the wife shall be entitled to Rs. 12,179/- and the son shall be entitled to Rs. 6,089/- in lieu of the arrears and the same shall be paid @ Rs. 1,000/- per month and @ Rs. 500/- per month, alongwith the maintenance 2 allowance, as an additional installment to the wife and son respectively. In default of making payment of three regular installments, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the whole sum in lump sum. 2. None is present on behalf of the revisionist. I have heard Sri P.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the impugned judgment and order and have also gone through the material available on the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent wife Smt. Kanchan moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Vikas Singh for award of maintenance for herself and for her son-respondent no.3 with the averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 22.06.2003 in accordance with the HINDU RITES. It is averted that a son was born out of this wedlock on 02.06.2004, who is living with her. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started taunting her for the lesser dowry. They told her to fetch a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as cash and a Motorcycle. She was beaten also. She was removed from the home by the revisionist with the threats not to return again without fulfilling their demand. On a PANCHAYAT, she was assured not to repeat maltreatment, but their behaviour remained unchanged. She was again ousted from the house on 10.11.2004 after committing MARPEET with her. From that day she is residing at her parental home. It is stated that the petitioner has no means of income to maintain her and her child; while the revisionist has agricultural land; he is busy in property dealing work; he is a contractor of sand and concrete; his father owns two well built houses and from all resources the revisionist earns a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per month. The petitioner prayed that maintenance allowance may be 3 awarded to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month for herself and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month for her son. Refuting the averments made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he denied the allegations made by the petitioner towards the demand of dowry. He denied the cruelty. It is stated that he never deserted the respondent; rather she left his house without his consent. It is submitted that a petition for restoration of conjugal rights is filed. He is ready to keep her with him. He denied the income shown by the respondent-wife. It is stated that the revisionist is a labourer. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned trial court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 partly allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist- husband to pay maintenance as referred above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. None is present to press this revision, despite the list is revised. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I find that so far the marriage in between the revisionist and the petitioner is concerned the marriage is admitted. It revealed from the judgment and order of the court below that both the revisionist and the wife have blamed to each other so far the desertion of the wife is concerned. The petitioner has submitted that on account of continuous harassment and for the demand of dowry, she was ousted by the revisionist from his house. Therefore, the wife has sufficient reason to live separately. On due consideration, the court below has also reached to the conclusion that so far the income of the parties is concerned it is not proved by the definite evidence but as the revisionist has not refuted that he is an electrician, therefore the court below has reached to the conclusion that the revisionist has concealed his income. But in case, the revisionist is considered to be a 4 labourer his income would be Rs. 3,000/- per month at least. It reveals that after the respondent no.1 was ousted, the revisionist did not pay any heed towards her. He neglected her to get rid of paying maintenance. The revisionist has the responsibility to maintain her wife and son. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the trial court has rightly directed the revisionist to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 and Rs. 500/- per month to the son-respondent no.3 from the date of filing the application i.e. 23.02.2005. Hence, the learned court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order impugned, which does not warrant interference at this stage. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.02.2006. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 18.04.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.10.2008 NCM