IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.231 of 2008 Anmol Rastogi … Revisionist Versus Smt. Anju Rastogi … Respondent Dated: March 18, 2009 None is present for the revisionist though list has been revised Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for Respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.339 of 2004, Smt. Anju Rastogi Vs. Anmol Rastogi, whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application moved by the respondent ex parte against the revisionist and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent as maintenance from the date of application. None is present for the revisionist, though list has been revised. However Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Adv. for the respondent is present. Perused the entire material on record. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent- Smt. Anju Rastogi moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 09.02.2004 as per Hindu RITES and her parents gave dowry as per status. But just from the day of marriage, the revisionist and his family members started committing mental harassment of the respondent for getting less dowry and even some times, she was subjected to physical harassment. The revisionist and his family members demanded Rs.10.00 lacs in cash and a Maruti Car in dowry and on non-fulfillment of this demand, she was threatened to her life. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by the respondent against the revisionist. On 11.10.2006, revisionist appeared before the court below but thereafter he was absent and did not present before the court below on the next dates fixed. As such on 18.5.2007, order for ex parte proceedings was passed against him. After hearing counsel for the respondent and appreciating the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun per judgment and order dated 28.7.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred the present revision. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the court below has arbitrarily passed the impugned ex parte order directing the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. There is no force in this argument. Firstly, on 11.10.2006 the revisionist appeared before the court below and gave an application for appointing an Advocate. But later on he became absent. As such on 18.5.2007, the court below rightly passed an order for proceeding ex parte against him. The respondent shown the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.50,000/- per month and said that the revisionist is a Jeweler but to prove this contention, no documentary proof was produced by the respondent, therefore, the court below rightly did not accept the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.50,000/- per month. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below rightly awarded Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the respondent against the revisionist. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent is unable to maintain herself and due to the mal-treatment of revisionist and his family members, 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 her. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 18, 2009 Rajeev Dang