IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.06 of 2009 Pankaj Sanwal … Revisionist Versus Rishika Sanwal … Respondent Dated: March 4, 2009 Sri Pradeep Singh Bisht, Adv. for the revisionist Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Adv. for the respondent 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 15.12.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Crl. Revision No.08/2008, Smt. Rishika Sanwal Vs. Pankaj Sanwal, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. 2. I have heard Sri Pradeep Singh Bisht, Adv. for the revisionist and Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Adv. for the respondent and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of case are that Respondent-Smt. Rishika Sanwal moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 09.05.2007 with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 24.05.2005 as per Hindu RITES. The father of respondent spent money in marriage according to his status and an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs was spent in marriage. However the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by father of respondent and they started demanding more money from her in dowry so as to expand the business of revisionist. It was further stated that the revisionist is habitual of drinking alcohol and in the state of intoxication, he started committing physical harassment upon the respondent and ultimately he ousted her from his house in the month of December, 2006. It was further stated that the financial position of father of respondent was not sound and for this reason, respondent was unable to maintain herself. On the other hand revisionist is having business of wholesale of Drugs. Besides this revisionist owns a house in which some tenants are also residing. As such, the revisionist was shown to be earning Rs.20,000/- per month. With all these averments an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned CJM, Pithoragarh vide his judgment and order dated 18.2.2008 dismissed the petition moved by respondent u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. Against the said order, the respondent-wife preferred a criminal revision before Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh which was registered as Crl. Revision No.8/2008. Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh vide his judgment and order dated 15.12.2008 allowed the revision moved by respondent-Rishika Sanwal and directed the revisionist-husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent from the date of application and accordingly the judgment and order dated 18.2.2008 passed by CJM, Pithoragarh in Crl. Case No.28/2007, was quashed. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.12.2008, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. The impugned order has been assailed by the revisionist firstly on the ground that the respondent-Rishika Sanwal had left the house of revisionist-Pankaj Sanwal as per her own will. I do not find any force in this ground as learned Sessions Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the court below i.e. CJM, Pithoragarh did not consider the fact that the revisionist-husband was demanding Rs.1.00 lac in cash in dowry from respondent so as to expand his business. When she shown her inability to get the said amount, then she was also subjected to physical and mental torture by the revisionist in the state of intoxication. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the finding that in view of the aforesaid torture of revisionist, it was but natural for the respondent-wife to come back and then to stay at her parental house. 5. The next ground of challenge is that the court below has wrongly determined the monthly income of the revisionist. There is again no force in this ground as learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that revisionist- husband himself produced a certificate issued by Tehsildar, Haldwani in which it was stated that the monthly income of revisionist-Pankaj Sanwal is Rs.2,000/-. From which source the revisionist derives this income, this fact was neither disclosed in the income certificate nor in the evidence produced by the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge has categorically recorded a finding that the revisionist is a B.Com qualified person and he is the only child of his parents and he resides along with his father in his house and even the tenants were also residing in the said house. Thus, it was rightly held by court below that the revisionist was only responsible for maintenance of his wife-respondent. The court below further rightly recorded a finding that in the present scenario, a daily labourer earns more than Rs.100-150 per day i.e. Rs.3,000-4,000 per month. In this factual position of the case, the court below rightly determined the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.4,000/- per month and as such has rightly awarded monthly maintenance to respondent as discussed above. 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent-Rishika Sanwal is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting by revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 7. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 09.01.2009 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 4, 2009 Rajeev Dang