IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 128 OF 2005 Prem Mashih S/o Sri Madan Mashih, R/o Dak Bangla Parisar, Van Vibhag, Chorgalia, Tehsil Haldwani, Distt. Nainital. ……… Revisionist Versus 1.Smt. Manju D/o Sri Yusuf Mashih, 2.Aagam Mashih S/o Sri Prem Mashih, 3.Aashish Mashih S/o Sri Prem Mashih, Respt. No.2 & 3 through her Mother Smt.Manju R/o Ward no. 2, Aaranchal Colony, Back of FCI Godown, Kichha, District U.S. Nagar. .………. Respondent Dated: August 12, 2008 Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 19.05.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Criminal Case No.101/03 Smt. Manju and ors. vs. Prem Mashih, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 900/- per month to the wife-respondent no.1 and Rs. 300/- per month each to the children-respondent nos. 2 & 3 within two months, from the date of filing the application. 2. Heard Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-Smt. Manju moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Prem Mashih for award of maintenance to herself and for two children-respondent no.2 & 3 with the averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.1 was solemnized at Kichha on 15.02.1999 in accordance with the Christian rites. In the marriage; dowry was given according to the status of the petitioner’s family. It is stated that after the marriage, the petitioner was subjected to cruelty due to demand of dowry and she was forcibly sent to her parental house during her pregnancy. On being persuaded the revisionist took her back to his house, but again a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and a Motorcycle was demanded as dowry. When she got pregnant for a second time she was again left at her parental house. It is submitted that she is residing at her parental house since February 2002. It is averted that on one hand she has no means of livelihood while the revisionist is posted as CHOWKIDAR at the Inspection House, Chorgalia in the Forest Department and his salary is Rs. 3,000/- per month. Besides it he sells milk and from all resources he earns Rs. 6,000/- per month out of which he can easily pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to his wife and the children. Although the revisionist remained present before the Court below at the primary stage of the proceedings, he filed his objection, but thereafter he did not turn up before the Trial Court. The wife-respondent no.1 led her evidence before the Trial Court. As the revisionist did not turn up before the Court, therefore the Trial Court heard ex-parte to the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case the learned Trial Court vide his 3 judgment and order dated 19.05.2004 allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 900/- per month to the wife-respondent no.1 and Rs. 300/- per month each to the children-respondent nos. 2 & 3 from the date of filing application, within two months. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. The order impugned has been assailed that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration, the written statement of the revisionist filed before the Trial Court. But from the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the primarily the revisionist filed his written statement, but at the time of cross-examining the witness, he absented himself from the Court’s proceedings, therefore the Court below heard the matter ex-parte. In support of her version, the respondent-wife filed her affidavit. The Court below arrived to the conclusion that there is no reasonable cause to disbelieve the version of the petitioner in which she has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry, therefore she has sufficient and reasonable grounds to live separately from her husband. Further, the Court below has rightly assessed the income of the revisionist as Rs. 3,000/- per month and thereby rightly directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 900/- per month to his wife and a sum of Rs. 300/- per month each to the children (total Rs. 1,500/- per month) as maintenance. Hence, the learned court below after considering the evidence available on the record and considering the facts and circumstances 4 of the case, rightly passed the order impugned, which does not warrant interference at this stage. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.05.2004. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 29.06.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.08.2008 NCM