IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.208 OF 2006 Shahid Mirza … Revisionist Versus Smt. Shabee Jahara … Respondents (2) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.69 OF 2007 SMt. Shabia Jhera … Revisionist Versus Family Court Judge & another … Respondents Dated: July 26, 2010 ADVOCATES IN CRLR No.208-06 Sri SK Shandilya Advocate for the revisionist Sri RKS Verma, Adv. i/b Sri Sanjeev Singh, for respondent no.2 ADVOCATES IN CRLR No.69-067 Sri RKS Verma, Adv., for the revisionist Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri SK Shandilya, Adv. for the respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Both the revisions are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.8.2006 and the issue to be decided is also common, as such both are disposed of by this common judgment and order. These criminal revisions, 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, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.236 of 2004, Smt. Shabia Jhera Vs. Shahid Mirza. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief the facts of the case are that the Smt. Shabia Zahra moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the allegations that she got married with the revisionist-Shahid Mirza on 3.10.2004 as per Muslim rituals and in the marriage, her father had given Rs.7,000/- at the time of engagement and Rs.11,000/- at the time of marriage as well as other necessary ornaments and articles to the revisionist-Shahid Mirza and his family members. However the revisionist-Shahid Mirza and his family members were of greedy nature and they started committing cruelty upon her for bringing more dowry and she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and her in-laws due to demand of dowry. It was also stated by her that she is having no source of income and is, therefore, unable to maintain herself, however her husband- Sahid Mirza is a Pharmacist and is having a Medical Store at Delhi and he earns Rs.20,000/- per month and as such Rs.8000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist/husband appeared before the court below and denied the allegations made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties, perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below vide judgment and order dated 30.8.2006 allowed the petition filed by the respondent/wife thereby directing the revisionist/husband to pay Rs.1500/- per month from the date of application. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revisions have been preferred by the husband as well as by the wife for enhancement. About the income of the revisionist is concerned, the respondent/wife stated before the trial court that the revisionist is a Pharmacist and also having a medical store thereby he earns Rs.20000/- per month and to prove that fact, she filed the visiting card of her husband. On the contrary, the revisionist/husband stated that he simply works in the 3 Medical store and earns Rs.1500/- per month. He also produced the original certificates of Ansari Medical Store and Liyakat Medical Store. The court below held that the monthly income of a Pharmacist cannot be mere Rs.1500/-. Even the revisionist/husband himself stated in his own statement that his monthly income is Rs.2000/- per month while as per the certificate issued by the said Liyakat Medical Store, his monthly income was shown Rs.2200/- per month. Thus, the court below held that there is no similarity of the income as shown by the revisionist. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below awarded Rs.1500/- as maintenance to the respondent/wife against the revisionist/husband, which in my view, is perfectly correct and justified and there is no ground to interfere with the said order. Since the Court finds that the maintenance awarded by the trial court against the revisionist/husband is correct and justified, I do not find any good ground to enhance the amount of maintenance. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. For the reasons recorded above, both the revisions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 29.11.2006 is vacated. Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.) July 26, 2010