HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 110 of 2004 Sri Diwan Singh Bisht S/o Sri Ram Singh, R/o Mohalla Lakhanur, Ramnagar, District Nainital. -----Applicant/ Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and 3 others. ------- Respondents Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Sri J.S. Virk, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2,3 & 4. Dated: 8th April 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision 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 Act has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21st May 2004 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, camp-Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar in case no. 116 of 2003 ‘Smt. Asha Bisht and others vs. Diwan Singh Bisht’ whereby the Judge Family Court has allowed the application moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. of the respondent/wife and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance for his wife and Rs. 250/- per month each for his two daughters as maintenance, in all Rs. 1,500/-per month from the date of filing the application. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Asha Bisht moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court below against her husband/ revisionist Diwan Singh seeking maintenance for herself and for her two daughters, with the averments that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist on 20.11.2000 in accordance with the Hindu rituals. After the marriage; two daughters were born out of the wedlock. The revisionist demanded dowry and when his demand was not fulfilled, he ousted her from his house on 08.06.2003. It is further submitted that the applicant has no means of livelihood while the revisionist earns a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month from running a P.C.O. The revisionist is an agent in Insurance Company; besides it he occupies a self finance company. The applicant/wife demanded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and for her daughters. The revisionist filed his objection in which the fact of marriage between the parties was accepted but he denied the fact so far it relates to the demand of dowry. It is also admitted that he runs a P.C.O. and earns a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per year. The applicant led oral evidence of herself as PW1 and Sri Jagat Singh PW-2 was produced in her support. The Judge Family Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties passed the order impugned dated 21.05.2004. Aggrieved with the judgment and order, the husband- revisionist has come up in the present revision. 3. I have heard Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Add. Govt. Advocate for the State and Sri J.S. Virk, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri J.S. Virk, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 made statement at bar that the revisionist has been died. 5. On the basis of the statement made above at bar, Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as the revisionist has been expired, thus the revision has rendered infructuous and he does not want to press the revision at this stage. 6. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. The learned Judge, Family Court is justified in awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month for the wife of the revisionist and Rs. 250/- per month each for her two daughters, in all Rs. 1,500/-per month from the date of filing the application. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being infructuous. Interim order dated 06.07.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: