HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 48 of 2004 Raj Kumar Arya, ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus Smt. Alka Bharti. ------- Respondents Sri S.M.S. Mehta, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist. None for respondent. Dated: 9th May 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the order dated 23.02.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Matrimonial Misc. Case no. 227 of 2003 Smt. Alka Bharti vs. Raj Kumar Arya, whereby the learned Judge Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the respondent and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of the petition i.e. from 21.08.2003. It is further directed that arrears up to the month of January 2004 be paid in three equal installments and the amount of maintenance so directed be paid by 10th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist. None is present for the respondent. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that Smt. Alka Bharti, respondent filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband Sri Raj Kumar Arya, revisionist for her maintenance with the averments that her marriage with the revisionist was solemnized on 24.10.2001 at Venkteshwar Wedding Point, Littin Road, Dehradun according to the Hindu rituals. After the marriage, the couple had departed to Lucknow for honeymoon, but at Lucknow they did not cohabited and it was revealed that the revisionist is a eunuch. On 14.11.2001 the revisionist had gone to Italy. On 03.03.2002 the revisionist took the applicant to Italy where she came to know that he is not an Engineer. She lived with the revisionist for a period of three months, but the revisionist did not take interest to establish conjugal relations, therefore she compelled to come back. The applicant has no means of livelihood; she is depending upon her parents. The respondent earns a sum of 3,000 Euro i.e. Rs. 1,35,000/- per month, but he did not pay any heed towards her. The revisionist did not turn up before the Court below, therefore the Court below proceeded ex- parte against him. In support of her averments, the respondent has filed affidavit of Smt. Alka Bharti. After hearing the learned counsel for the wife-respondent and perusing of the record, the Court below has allowed the petition filed by the wife-respondent and directed the revisionist-husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of the petition i.e. from 21.08.2003. It is further directed that arrears up to the month of January 2004 be paid in three equal installments and the amount of maintenance so directed be paid by 10th of each month. Aggrieved with this order the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order itself reveals that the revisionist did not take part in the present proceedings, however he was participating in the parallel proceedings in Misc. Case no. 114/2003, therefore the Court below rightly proceeded ex-parte against him. The respondent by virtue of her petition and documentary evidence had established that after her marriage the revisionist did not start physical relations as of after the marriage relations and it was revealed that the revisionist is a eunuch. The petitioner/ respondent is living with her parents and she has no source of income whatsoever. On the other hand the revisionist is earning Rs. 1,35,000/- per month. The respondent did not pay any penny to his wife as maintenance. 5. During the course of arguments Sri Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated, at bar, that the matter has already been settled outside the Court and the case has finally been decided amicably between the parties and now the revision has rendered infructuous, therefore he does not want to press the revision at this stage. 6. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun dated 23.02.2004, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being infructuous. Interim order dated 6th April 2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: