IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.47 OF 2005 Harish Singh Mehara … Revisionist Versus Smt. Laxmi Devi … Respondent Dated: August 6, 2010 None for the revisionist though list has been revised Mr. PS Danu, Adv. for the respondent 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Crl. Case No.158/2003, Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. Harish Singh Mehara. Perused the entire material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that revisionist was married with respondent on 31.5.2001 and soon after the marriage the revisionist started neglecting the respondent and when she enquired, she came to know that revisionist is having relations with one girl Km. Kanchna. When the respondent resisted to it, the revisionist became annoyed and started committing Marpit and hurling abuses. On 19.9.2002, the revisionist ousted the respondent in her worn clothes after committing Marpit with her and since then she is residing at her parental house. Her parents are not able to maintain the respondent while the revisionist is a rich man and having agricultural land and also a contractor of Road and Electricity Department and gets Rs.8000/- per month, besides he earns Rs.3000/- per month from agricultural field, vegetables and milk business. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and denied most of the averments of the application. On hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the court below vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2005 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1500/- per month from the date of application i.e. 9.12.2003. Hence this revision. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, the respondent stated the monthly income of revisionist as Rs.3000/- per month from vegetable and milk business and Rs.8000/- per month from the contract work, however the revisionist denied having any earning from the said sources but he too did not rightly disclose his source of income. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below determined the monthly income of revisionist as Rs.5000/- per month and as such awarded Rs.1500/- per month towards the maintenance. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the court below rightly awarded the maintenance amount against the revisionist and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 11.3.2005 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 6, 2010 Rajeev Dang