RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.14 OF 2009 Siraj Hussain S/o Imtiyaz Hussain Hadrisi ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Shama Parveen …... Respondent Dated: April 28, 2009 Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri I.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent 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(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.77/2008, Smt. Shama Praveen Vs. Siraj Hussain, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the application moved by the respondent/wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist/husband and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,500/- per month for maintenance of the respondent, from the date of filing the application i.e. 13.5.2008. The arrears were directed to be paid by the revisionist within 30 days. Thereafter, the amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent by the 10th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri I.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available in file. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent/wife Smt. Shama Parveen moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist in the year 2000 as per Muslim customs. The parents of the respondent had given sufficient dowry as per their status, however the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and for this reason they used to taunt her for bringing less dowry and also used to harass her physically and mentally. Amongst the people of the community the revisionist and his family members had given assurance that they will not harass her in future but their behavior did not change. When the revisionist was working in Saudi Arab then his parents used to torture her for the demand of dowry. It was also stated that the father of the respondent had given money to them several times but their demand remained same. Before seven months of filing the application, the revisionist returned from Saudi Arab. Then he asked her to bring money from her father for going to Dubai. When she showed her inability then she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the revisionist. On 22.2.2008 the revisionist belaboured her and also tried to kill her due to which she received injures. On getting the information, the father of the respondent came to her in- laws house on 23.2.2008 and asked about the incident then the revisionist and his family members threatened her and her father. After that on 24.2.2008 her father brought her Haldwani where her treatment was done. Since 24.2.2008 the respondent is living at her parental house and the revisionist did not pay any heed towards her nor he paid any amount for her maintenance. It was also stated that she is having no source of income and she does not know any work so as to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist does 3 work of embroidery from where he earns Rs.8,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was sought by the respondent/wife for maintenance of herself against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his objection. He admitted the fact of marriage with the respondent/wife but denied rest of the averments made in the application moved by the respondent u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the court below has erred in awarding excessive maintenance against the revisionist. I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist. The respondent/wife has stated in her application that in the past the revisionist was working in Saudi Arab but at present he does work of embroidery from where he earns Rs.8,000/- per month. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the work of the revisionist, the court below rightly awarded Rs.2,500/- as maintenance amount to be given to the respondent against the revisionist from the date of application i.e. 13.5.2008. 4 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent-Smt. Shama Parveen is unable to maintain herself and due to the reason that she was ousted by revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. Therefore, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the aforesaid order. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 15.1.2009 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 28, 2009 RG