HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 138 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Joshi S/o Tara Dutt Joshi, R/o G-12, Uttarakhand Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Mahakali Cave Road Andheri East, Mumbai-4000093. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, 2. Smt. Prema Joshi W/o Dinesh Joshi, D/o Sri Parmanand Nainwal, R/o Mohalla Durgapur, Ramnagar, Nainital. ------- Respondents Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1, None for respondent no.2. Dated: August 8, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2006 passed by the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Case no. 8 of 2006 Smt. Prema Joshi vs. Dinesh Chandra Joshi, whereby petition filed by the wife-respondent no.2 against the revisionist-husband u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,400/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 at her residential address as maintenance from the date of filing the application i.e. from 30.01.2006 by 10th of each month. It is further directed that the arrears in lieu thereof shall be paid within 30 days. 2. List has been revised but there is no representation on behalf of wife-respondent no.2. Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 and perused the record. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2-wife filed a petition against the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding her maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month from the revisionist with the averments inter-alia that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist on 24.02.2003 in accordance with Hindu rites. In the marriage according the status of the family of the petitioner a good dowry was given to the revisionist. In the marriage instead of giving articles; a cheque amounting to Rs. 1 Lac was given to the revisionist on his own request. It is averted that after the marriage she was being taunted and harassed for the dowry. On being harassed by the revisionist and his family members she felt nervousness and she was admitted on 03.09.2003 at Sunita Hospital, Andheri, Mumbai from where she was sent to her parental house. She was told by the revisionist to take medical treatment from her parental house and come bearing with her a certificate that she will not suffer ailments forever. She was medically treated at Kashipur and after her recovery she was taken to Mumbai. She was again subjected to cruelty therefore she again fell ill. On 2nd June 2004 she was again deserted by the revisionist and was left at Ramnagar. From that day she is residing with her parental house and depended on them. She has no source of income, while the revisionist is the owner of Dinesh Auto Garage from where he earns a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Besides it he operates 5 Taxies at Mumbai and earns a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The revisionist-husband contested the case before the Trial Court and filed his objection. The marriage in between the parties is not disputed. The revisionist had refuted the allegations of harassment and taunts in regard to the demand of dowry. It is stated that she was in ailments prior to her marriage and the marriage was solemnized by deceiving him. It is stated that she was sent to Ramnagar in accordance with her own will. It is stated that his wife is self dependent. He declined that he is owner of one Auto Garage, rather he does scrutiny of letters in a courier company and earns a meager 3 amount per month. Before the Trial Court, both the parties led their oral evidence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2006 allowed the petition of the wife-respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,400/- per month to his wife-respondent no.2 at her residential address as maintenance from the date of filing the application i.e. from 30.01.2006 by 10th of each month. It is further directed that the arrears in lieu thereof shall be paid within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, the husband-revisionist has preferred this revision. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted, at bar, that he does not intend to press the revision at this stage, therefore the revision may be dismissed as such. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 27.07.2006 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 11.08.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 08.08.2008 NCM: