IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.26 of 2007 Balvant Singh … Revisionist Versus Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar and two others … Respondents Dated: March 18, 2009 Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 16.01.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Case No.244/2004, Smt. Surender Kaur & another Vs. Balvant Singh, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.3, till he attains majority, as maintenance by the 7th of each month from the date of application i.e. 6.11.2004. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.2-Smt. Surender Kaur moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist before three years as per Sikh rituals. Her parents gave dowry as per status but the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and soon after the marriage, they started demanding Rs.50,000/- in cash and a motorcycle in dowry and for non-fulfillment of this demand, they started committing physical and mental harassment upon her. Ultimately in June, 2004, revisionist and his family members ousted her from the house in her worn clothes. It was also stated when she was ousted, at that time she was pregnant and in September, 2004 she gave birth to a child (respondent no.3) but neither the revisionist nor his any family member paid any heed to it. It was further stated that the revisionist is having 35 acres of land which he cultivates and he is also having a Tractor Trolley and further having a Mini Dairy Farm from where he earns Rs.30,000/-per month from all sources. On the other hand, she does not know any work so as to maintain herself. As such an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2 for herself and her child. Revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 16.1.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has filed this revision. Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, both have given their joint consent at bar that the present revision may be disposed of with the direction that the revisionist shall pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.3, in total Rs.3,000/- per month for their maintenance from the date of application i.e. 6.11.2004. In view of the above agreement between both the parties, the present revision is disposed of with a direction that the revisionist shall pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.3, in total Rs.3,000/- per month, for their maintenance from the date of application i.e. 6.11.2004. The judgment and order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the court below stands modified to this extent only. Interim order dated 28.2.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 18, 2009 Rajeev Dang