IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.08 OF 2005 Ajay Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma R/o Mohalla-Chhunga Darwaja, Police Station-Amroha, District J.O. Nagar. ……… Revisionist Versus Principal Judge Family Court, Haridwar & another …… Respondents. Dated: July 09, 2008 None appears on behalf of the revisionist. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision 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 Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the orders dated 7.12.2004 and 9.08.2004 passed by Judge Family Court, Haridwar. 2. None appears on behalf of the revisionist. I have heard Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 as well as Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Anju moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court, Haridwar. Learned Judge Family Court, vide his order dated 09.08.2004 allowed the said application and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/-per month to respondent no.2. Thereafter, the revisionist-Ajay Kumar Sharma moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before Judge Family Court, Haridwar with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09.08.2004. In the application, the revisionist has stated that respondent no.2- Smt. Anju herself did not want to reside with him. It was also stated that a matrimonial suit u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also preferred, which was decided ex-parte by Civil Judge (S.D.) J.P. Nagar vide judgment & order dated 19.08.2004 in favour of the revisionist. 4. Respondent no.2-Smt. Anju also filed her objection to the application moved by the revisionist u/s 127 Cr.P.C. and stated that her husband Ajay Kumar Sharma was running a cloth shop and the shop has also been let out on rent from which the revisionist earns Rs.10,000/-per month. It was also stated that she was not having any information about the suit filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As soon as she came to know, she also moved an application for setting aside the said ex-parte decision. She also stated that her husband used to commit harassment and also threatened to her life. 5. After considering the aforesaid entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge Family Court, Haridwar vide his order dated 07.12.2004 has rejected the application moved by the revisionist u/S 127 Cr.P.C. Against the aforesaid orders dated 09.08.2004 and 07.12.2004, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has firstly argued that since the order dated 09.08.2004 passed by Judge Family Court, Haridwar, is an interlocutory order, as such the revision preferred against the interlocutory orders is not maintainable. The argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent no.2 has force. It is settled law that against the interlocutory order, the revision under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, is not maintainable. 7. It was further argued by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the revisionist is having sufficient means of income however, he is intentionally neglecting his wife in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance. This argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent no.2 also bears force. The learned trial court in its order has rightly recorded the finding that the revisionist is having a cloth shop from which he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, the respondent no.2 was not having any source of income and due to this reason, she was unable to maintain herself. Learned trial court after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the financial position of the revisionist, rightly allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 for grant of interim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C and rightly awarded Rs.1,000/-per month to respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The trial court also rightly reached to the conclusion that there was no need to modify the amount of maintenance. As such, the trial court has also rightly rejected the application moved by the revisionist u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for modifying the amount of interim maintenance. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the orders dated 09.08.2004 and 07.12.2004 are correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said orders. 9. Therefore, the revision preferred by the revisionist is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. [ (Dharam Veer, J.) 09.7.2008 Rajeev Dang