IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.46 of 2007 Umendra Singh S/o Gulab Singh … Revisionist Versus Special Judicial Magistrate, Almora and another … Respondents Dated: December 11, 2008 Sri Amish Tewari, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State None for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 31.01.2007 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Misc. Criminal Case No.27 of 2006, Smt. Padma @ Pushpa Vs. Umendra Singh, whereby the learned Magistrate has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to Respondent No.2-Smt. Padma Devi as maintenance allowance. 2. Sri Amish Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State are present. None is present for respondent no.2. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.2-Smt. Padma Devi was married with the revisionist on 6.12.2005 as per Hindu RITES and after the marriage, both of them started residing like husband and wife. It was also stated that father of respondent no.2 gave dowry to the revisionist as per his demand and also gave Rs.50,000/- in cash. However, the revisionist started harassing respondent no.2 to get Rs.1.00 lacs in cash and a vehicle in dowry. After 7-8 days, the revisionist went to his duty and when he came back on leave, he again started committing harassment on her for dowry. On the inability shown by respondent no.2, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the revisionist and his family members. On 9.3.2006, the atrocity of mother of revisionist reached to an extent that she poured hot water on respondent no.2 due to which her foot was burnt. When the respondent no.2 prayed for her rescue, then the mother of revisionist asked her to leave the house due to which she had to leave the house. When respondent no.2 informed this matter to her husband, then he also asked her to come back only with dowry and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that due to the harassment committed by the revisionist and his family members, she is compelled to live at her parental house. It was also stated that she is an unemployed lady and is totally dependent on her father. On the other hand, revisionist is posted in the Army from where he earns Rs.7,000/- per month as salary. The revisionist also earns Rs.2,000/- per month from the agricultural land in his village. With all these averments, by way of application, respondent no.2 prayed for maintenance before the court below. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and denied most of the averments made in the application moved by respondent no.2. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Almora after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, vide his judgment and order dated 31.1.2007 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance allowance. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri Amish Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that that both the parties have entered into compromise and the matter has finally been decided outside the court. Hence, he submitted that he does not want to press his revision and prayed that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 31.1.2007 passed by court below and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. 6. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 29.3.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) December 11, 2008 Rajeev Dang