IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.57 of 2007 Deepak Chamoli S/o Sachidanand Chamoli R/o Deepnagar, Ajabpurkalan, Dehradun, Distt. Dehradun … Revisionist Versus Smt. Himanshi Chamoli W/o Deepak Chamoli, R/o Deepnagar, P.O. Ajabpurkalan, Distt. Dehradun at present residing at Miyanwala, behind Pili Kothi, P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun … Respondent Dated: December 12, 2008 Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the revisionist None is present 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 06.02.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.190/2005, Smt. Himanshi Chamoli Vs. Deepak Chamoli, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent. 2. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the revisionist is present. No one is present for the respondent, though service is reported to be sufficient. Perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent- Smt. Himanshi Chamoli moved an application u/s 125 CrPC with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 05.12.2004 as per Hindu RITES. However, soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing the respondent by demanding Rs.3.00 lacs in cash, a house and a car in dowry. On 10.12.2004, when the respondent came to her in-laws from her parental house, then again the revisionist and his family members started committing harassing her for dowry and also threatened to set her at fire by pouring kerosene oil. On 26.3.2005, revisionist and his brother, in a drunken state, beaten her with fists and kicks and also by DANDAS and they also continued to demand dowry in the aforesaid way. On 9.4.2005, revisionist after leaving the respondent at her parental house, left from there. Thereafter, she was again threatened to come only with dowry otherwise she need not come. Since then she is residing at her parental house and she has got no issue out of the said wedlock. It was also stated that she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated that revisionist has sold his house for Rs.10.00 lacs. It was also stated that the revisionist is having a Dry Clean Shop in Dehradun from where he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. Besides this, revisionist also runs a tea shop from where he earns Rs.8,000/- per month. In total, the revisionist was shown to be earning Rs.23,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by the respondent against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and he only admitted the factum of his marriage with respondent and has denied rest of the averments made in the application. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 06.02.2007 after hearing the parties and appreciating the material on record, directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.02.2007, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has awarded the maintenance without application of mind. I do not find any force in this argument. The revisionist is his evidence has stated that the respondent runs a Beauty Parlor from where she earns Rs.10,000/- per month, however the court below did not accept this plea in view of non-production of any documentary evidence. Likewise, respondent also stated in her application that the revisionist does the work of Dry Cleaning, however in the same way, no documentary evidence in support of that plea was produced by her. The revisionist stated before the court below that he deals in selling vegetables in a handcart from where he earns Rs.70-80 per day. He also stated that he resides in a rented accommodation, rent of which is Rs.900/- per month. The court below even after considering the statement of revisionist, rightly held the income of Rs.150- 200 per day. On that basis, the court below rightly held the monthly income of the revisionist to be Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly has rightly awarded Rs.1,500/- as maintenance to the respondent against the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that the revisionist intends to keep the respondent with him, however the respondent intentionally does not want to live with the revisionist. This argument has also got no force as the respondent has clearly stated in her evidence that soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started demanding Rs.3.00 lacs in cash, a car and a house in dowry. When the respondent did not fulfill the demand of dowry, then she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the revisionist and his family members. Even on 26.3.2005, she was beaten by the revisionist and his brothers with fists and kicks and she was also threatened to her life. On 9.4.2005, the revisionist himself left the respondent at her parental house. Even the respondent also lodged a case against the revisionist and his family members for the offences punishable u/s 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and one punishable u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the revisionist himself did not want to keep his wife with him and due to the cruelty committed by the revisionist and his family members, she is residing at her parental house. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent is unable to maintain herself and because of the revisionist’s ousting, 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 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month for maintenance of respondent. 7. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 06.04.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.12.2008 Rajeev Dang