IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.18 OF 2008 Sanjay Chopra S/o Indra Jeet Chopra R/o 32 A, Kishanpur, Rajpur Road, P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun 2. Smt. Saroj Chopra 3. Km. Ekta 4. Km. Shweta .…... Respondents Dated: March 16, 2009 Mr. K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 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 4.1.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.361/02, Smt. Saroj Chopra & others Vs. Sanjay Chopra, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 & 4, in total Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance, from the date of application. 2. I have heard Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State as well as Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4. Perused the entire material available on file. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Saroj Chopra moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 5.5.1989 in Dehradun. Out of the said wedlock, two daughters, namely, Km. Ekta (respondent no.3) and Km. Shweta (respondent no.4) were born. It was also stated that the revisionist was habitual of drinking alcohol and he used to commit Marpeet with her and used to demand money from her. It was also stated that due to birth of two girls, the revisionist started beating her. He also started demanding Rs.1.00 Lac as dowry from her. On 17.7.1999 in the night at about 10:00 P:M, in the state of intoxication, the revisionist ousted her and her two daughters from the house in their wearing clothes. Since then the respondent no.2 along with her daughters is living separately from the revisionist. It was also stated that neither he came to see her and her two daughters nor he has paid any amount for their maintenance. It was also stated that due to mental and physical harassment committed by the revisionist the respondent no.2 remains ill and is therefore unable to do any work. She has got no source of income so as to maintain herself and her two daughters. On the other hand, it was stated by respondent no.2 that the revisionist belongs to rich family. He is a property dealer and he also does work of constructing buildings. As such, he was shown to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each for maintenance of respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 was sought by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and has admitted the fact of marriage with the respondent no.2 and also two 3 daughters born out from their wedlock but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by the respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material available on file, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 4.1.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and her daughters (respondent nos.3 & 4) and due to ousting by the revisionist for the demand of dowry, she along with her daughters is compelled to live separately. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. 7. Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the court below has erred by awarding excessive maintenance amount against the revisionist. I find force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist. The respondent no.2 in her cross-examination has admitted that she is an intermediate pass lady. She further stated that she does the work of cleaning in others house from where she earns Rs.700-800/- per month. In the present scenario it cannot be said that a lady who is having two children and who is intermediate pass, is earning such a meager amount of Rs.700-800/- per month for her livelihood. She herself admitted that she is an intermediate pass 4 lady and the revisionist has also stated that she does the work of tuitions from where she gets Rs.1,000/- per month. As such, the possibility of earning money by way of tuitions cannot be ignored. In view of the above-said discussion, I am of the view that the maintenance amount awarded to the respondent no.2/wife for Rs.4,000/- per month is on higher side and the interest of justice would be met if the maintenance amount awarded to the wife is reduced to Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of application. So far as the maintenance of children is concerned, the revisionist does the work of property dealing and that of construction of buildings from where he must be earning sufficient amount so as to maintain his children. Therefore, the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 & 4, as awarded by the court below, from the date of application, is correct and does not require any interference. 8. For the reasons recorded above, revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 4.1.2008 passed by court below is modified to the extent that the respondent no.2 would be entitled to get Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance against the revisionist instead of Rs.4,000/- per month as directed by court below from the date of application. However, the respondent nos.3 & 4 will be entitled to get the same maintenance amount i.e. of Rs.2,000/- per month each, as awarded by the court below, from the date of application. Interim order dated 24.01.2008 passed by the Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.03.2009 RG