IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.94 of 2002 Biram Singh … Revisionist Versus Presiding Judge, Family Court & others … Respondents Dated: February 26, 2010 Sri Mohd. Safdar, Adv. i/b Sri Navneet Kaushik, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State Sri Rajendra Singh, Adv. for the respondent no.2 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 06.09.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.41 of 2002, Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. Biram Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2-Smt. Santosh Devi moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar on 5.4.1999 with the allegations that she got married with the revisionist before 9 nine years as per Hindu RITES and she performed her marital obligations by living in the house of her husband along with his family members. After one year of marriage, she also gave birth to a child, namely, Sandeep. It was further stated that by respondent no.2 that her parents gave dowry beyond their status, however, the revisionist and his family members were of greedy nature and due to the reason of getting lesser dowry, they started committing physical and mental cruelty upon her and used to demand Rs.20,000/- cash and a buffalo. Thereafter, she also got paid Rs.1,000/- to her husband from her father, however, even then, their greed did not stop and ultimately they ousted her along with her son. On 18.5.1995, the respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her son, however in that application, a compromise was arrived at in between the parties and the respondent no.2 started residing along with her husband. Thereafter, for about two years, she was treated well and then she also gave a birth to another son, namely, Arun. However, thereafter the revisionist again started committing physical and mental cruelty upon the respondent no.2. Ultimately, on 14.3.1999, she was ousted from her in-laws house. It was further stated in the application that the respondent no.2 has no source of income while the revisionist does the agriculture work and also used to sell milk, by which he gets Rs.10,000/- per month. With the same averments, the respondent no.2 moved applciation claiming Rs.500/- per month for herself and Rs.500/- per month for her son, in total Rs.1,000/- per month, against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the application of the respondent no.2. On hearing the counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2002 allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.500/- per month for the respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month for her son, in total Rs.1,000/- per month, from the date of applciation i.e. 5.4.1999 till the revisionist do not take his wife and son back happily with him. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up here. As far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the court below rightly held that the revisionist is having 16 Bighas of land. Besides this, he has sufficient income from growing sugarcane, which is Rs.1.20 lacs. Besides this he also gets income from the wheat crop. The revisionist also gets busy in taking the land on contract and also used to keep buffaloes and sells milk. The court below also determined the income from milk for Rs.9,000/- per month. Accordingly, the court below rightly came to the conclusion that the revisionist has got sufficient means and he can easily maintain his wife and son. In view of the above-said position, the court below rightly allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 for Rs.1,000/- per month (Rs.500 per month for herself and Rs.500/- per month for her son) from the date of application. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgmenet and order dated 6.09.2002 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. For the reasons recorded above, the revision devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 6.9.2002 passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 11.10.2002 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) February 26, 2010 Rajeev Dang