IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.155 OF 2005 Mohammad Naeem S/o Bundu Hasan Master ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Km. Arshi (minor) 3. Mohammad Danish (minor) 4. Km. Nishi Naz (minor) All residents of 109 Chander Nagar Thana-Kotwali District-Dehradun ……… Respondents Dated: February 11, 2009 Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4. 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 Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.121/2002, Km. Arshi & two others Vs. Mohammad Naeem, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month, each, to respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 09.02.2001. It was also directed that the revisionist will pay the maintenance amount to respondent nos.2 & 4 upto their marriage and to respondent no.3 upto when he attains the age of majority. It was also directed that the arrears shall be paid within three months. 3. I have heard T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State as well as Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondent no.2, 3 & 4 and perused the entire material available on file. 4. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 moved the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 are all minor in which respondent no.2 is 10 years’ old, respondent no.3 is 9 years’ old and respondent no.4 is 4 years’ old. It is also stated that the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 are children of the revisionist. The revisionist was married to their mother Smt. Naheed Parveen in the year 1990 as per Muslim customs and in the marriage sufficient dowry was given to the revisionist. Out of the said wedlock, respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 were born. On 5.8.1998, the revisionist divorced their mother and also left respondent nos.2, 3 & 4. Since then the mother of respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 is living at her parental house. After the divorce, neither the revisionist came to meet them nor he paid any amount for their maintenance. It was also stated that the mother of respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 does not know any work and they are dependent on their maternal grandparents, who themselves are very poor. On the other hand, it is also stated that the revisionist is a doctor by profession and earns Rs.15,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month each for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 was sought as maintenance allowance against the revisionist. 4. Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondent no.2, 3 & 4, both have jointly submitted at bar that the parties have settled the dispute outside the court and it was also submitted by both of them that the present revision may be disposed of with a direction to the revisionist that he will pay Rs.700/- per month each to respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, from the date of application i.e. 9.2.2001. 5. In view of the aforesaid agreement between both the parties, the present revision is disposed of with a direction that the revisionist will pay Rs.700/- per month each to respondent no.2, 3 & 4 (total Rs.2,100/- per month), from the date of application i.e. 9.2.2001. The arrears, if any, shall also be paid by the revisionist within three months. Interim order dated 16.8.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 11.02.2009 RG