1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2010 Suresh Goldar, S/o Satish Goldar R/o Baikunthpur No. 1. Shakti Farm P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar …..…Revisionist Versus 1. Anima Goldar, W/o Suresh Goldar D/o Prafulla Goldar R/o Village Shakti Farm Bazar, Ward No. 4 Kotwali Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar 2. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Home Dehradun ……….Respondents Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, present for the Revisionist. Mrs. Mamta Bisht A.G.A., present for the respondent no. 2/ State. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 1. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2009, passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case no. 58 of 2008, whereby said court has directed revisionist Suresh Goldar (husband)to pay maintenance @ ` 1,500/- 2 per month to his wife Anima Goldar (respondent) under section 125 Cr.P.C.. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist got married to the respondent on 12.05.2006, at Sitarganj. In her application under section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent has alleged that she was ousted from her husbands' house on 10.09.2007, and the revisionist neglected to maintain her. She has also pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself, and does not know any work by which she can earn money. On the other hand, the revisionist is said to be a farmer having ` 8,000/- per month as his income from five acres of land under his cultivation. 4. The revisionist contested the application but admitted his marriage with the respondent. 5. The trial court after recording evidence, and hearing the parties found that the husband is liable to pay maintenance @ ` 1,500/- per month to his wife (present respondent). 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued 3 before this Court that revisionist is a farmer who is living in a joint family. He is earning as a daily wage worker. It is further argued that the revisionist is unable to pay ` 1,500/- per month to his wife. 7. Whether the revisionist is a farmer or a labourer it does not absolve him from his responsibility to maintain his wife. The trial court has rightly with reasons assessed that in the fact and circumstances of the case the respondent is entitled to ` 1,500/- per month as maintenance from her husband. In the opinion of this Court, wife cannot be left to starve. The amount directed to be paid by the trial court appears to be just and reasonable. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar. 8. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 18.10.2011