IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.92 of 2007 Farooq .…. Revisionist Versus State & Others …………… Respondents March 6, 2009 Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. None for the respondent no. 2 to 4. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite sufficient service. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar in case no. 64/2006, Nazrana v. Farooq under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby learned Additional Family Judge, Roorkee has awarded maintenance amounting to Rs.1200/- per month to the respondents from the date of the impugned order and has further directed that out of the said amount of Rs.1200/-, respondent no. 3 & 4 each will get Rs.300/- per month and the rest will go to the respondent no. 2. 3. Facts, in brief, are that revisionist Farooq got married to Smt. Nazrana/respondent no. 2 on 15.10.2001 as per Muslim rituals. They have two sons from the said wedlock. After one year of their marriage, they started living inharmoniously. Respondent no. 2 filed a suit alleging that her husband (revisionist) is in the habit of taking liquor and bhang and he is in the bad company. She also made allegation of domestic violence 2 by the revisionist for bringing dowry of Rs.50,000/- and a motorbike from her father and threatens her that if his demands of dowry would not be fulfilled, he would divorce her. Respondent no. 2 tried to make the revisionist understand that her parents are poor and unable to fulfill his demands but revisionist continued the acts of cruelty towards the respondent no. 2. Smt. Nazrana (Wife) also alleged that the revisionist had ousted her from his house in February, 2006 when she was pregnant with her second child. It was further stated by her that revisionist is engaged in the business of kabari and earns nearly Rs.20,000/- per month from the said business. Respondent no. 2 claimed that she has no source of livelihood and is unable to maintain herself and her two children and claimed maintenance from the revisionist. 4. Revisionist Farooq claimed that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Nazrana has deserted him and has been living with her parents on her own. He earns approximately Rs.1500/- per month only by doing mazdoori on daily basis. He has further stated that her wife is apt in tailoring and is in a position to maintain herself and her two children. 5. After appreciating the evidence and other materials available on record, learned Additional Family Judge, Roorkee allowed the application of the respondent no. 2 and awarded maintenance of Rs.1200/- per month to the respondents from the date of the impugned order, out of which rupees three hundred were directed to be paid to the respondent no. 3 & 4 each and rest to the respondent no. 2. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and after going through the materials available on the record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the 3 impugned order. Learned Additional Family Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that a healthy man can at least earn Rs.2500-3000/- per month and has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs.1200/- per month keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Family Judge in his impugned order dated 28.3.2007, which requires no interference by this Court. 7. In view of my foregoing discussion, the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Impugned order dated 28.3.2007 is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 21.5.2007 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 06.03.2009 PRABODH