IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.122 of 2006 Brij Mohan S/o Bali Ram R/o Vill.Supichipa tok Mushkharak Post Office Goutgori Patti Satbunga, Tehsil & District Nainital … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents Dated: August 5, 2008 Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State/respondent No.1 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 27.6.2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.193 of 2004, Tulsi Devi Vs. Brijmohan, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent No.2-Tulsi Devi and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to Respondent No.2 for her maintenance by the 10th of each month. Further, the arrears @Rs,1000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 23.12.2004, were directed to be paid within 30 days. 2. Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent No.1 are present. No one is present for Respondent No.2, though service is reported to be sufficient. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.2-Smt. Tusi Devi moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital on 23.12.2004 stating therein that she was married with the revisionist-Brij Mohan on 19.11.2000 as per Hindu Rituals. It was stated that after some time of marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.2 due to demand of dowry, however she continued to fulfill her conjugal duties. It was also stated that after one year of marriage, the revisionist ousted her from his house after committing Marpit. After that she came at her parental house and since then she is residing at her parental house being dependent on her parents. It was also stated that since last three years she is living at her parental house, however the revisionist did not pay any attention during that period nor he paid any maintenance allowance. It was also stated that the revisionist belongs to a respected family and earns Rs.2.00 lacs per month by selling fruit and vegetable products. On the other hand, she is having no source of income, hence she is unable to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by respondent no.2 and denied the averments made in the application. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 27.6.2006 allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to Respondent No.2 for her maintenance by the 10th of each month. Further, the arrears @Rs,1000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 23.12.2004, were directed to be paid within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.6.2006, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the matter has finally been decided outside the court and for this reason he does not want to press his revision and submitted that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 27.6.2006 passed by court below and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. 6. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 5, 2008 Rajeev Dang