IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 247 of 2005 Govind Prasad Dugtal S/o Sri Latu Ram R/o Village Gothi Tehsil Dharchula, District Pithoragarh. …………..…Revisionist. Versus 1. Smt. Prema Devi W/o Sri Govind Prasad Dugtal 2. Master Vinod, S/o Sri Govind Prasad Dugtal 3. Km. Bhawana, D/o Sri Govind Prasad Dugtal 4. Master Bharat, s/O Sri Govind Prasad Dugtal All residents of Village Tomek Post Bona, Patti Shera Tehsil Munsyari, District Pithoragarh. ……….Respondents. Shri Alok Mehra, Advocate, for the revisionist. Shri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate I, Didihat, in criminal misc. case No. 64 of 2003, whereby said court has allowed application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife Prema Devi (present respondent No. 1), Rs. 1000/- per month to Master Vinod (present respondent No. 2), Rs. 750/- per month to each of the respondent No. 3-Km. Bhawana, and respondent No. 4-Master Bharat. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Govind Prasad Dugtal, got married to respondent No. 1-Prema Devi in November 1989. Three children namely Master Vinod, Km. Bhawana and Master Bharat, were born out of the wedlock. Respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month with the allegations that the revisionist, who is a Driver with Border Roads Organisation, has neglected to maintain the respondents. It is also alleged in the application that the revisionist is a drunkard and committed marpit with the respondents and ousted them. 4. Revisionist contested the application and filed his written statement before the trial court. However, he admitted his marriage with respondent No. 1, and further admitted that respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4, are his children. But, he denied that he was drunkard or committed marpit with the respondents. Revisionist further pleaded before the trial court that his salary is only Rs. 5,000/- per month, and he is ready to keep his wife and children with him, who have left voluntarily his house. 5. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found that the revisionist 3 has neglected to maintain his wife and children, who are unable to maintain themselves. Considering the economic status of the parties, the trial court directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 1 (wife), Rs. 1,000/- per month to eldest son Vinod and Rs. 750/- per month to minor daughter Bhawana and Rs. 750/- per month to youngest child Bharat from the date of the order. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist pleaded before this Court that the amount awarded is excessive. He further pleaded that the revisionist is ready to keep his wife and children with him and the wife has left house of the revisionist on her own volition. The finding to the effect that the revisionist used to drink and commit marpit with his wife and children, recorded by the trial court, is based on evidence on record. This Court, in the revisional jurisdiction, is not inclined to interfere with the finding based on evidence, adduced by the parties. As far as, the amount of maintenance is concerned, learned counsel for the parties conceded that master Vinod has attained age of majority, as such, he is no more entitled to the maintenance, awarded by the trial court. Considering the fact that the revisionist is a Driver with Border Road Organisation (an undertaking of Government of India), and the fact that the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, are unable to maintain themselves, this Court finds no illegality in the 4 quantum of maintenance, directed to be paid by the trial court to these three respondents. 7. Therefore, this revision is dismissed with the observation that the revisionist shall not be required to make further payment of maintenance to respondent No. 2-Vinod, who is said to have attained the age of majority (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:16.03.2010 Sweta