IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2008 Smt. Sonia. …..…..Revisionist. Versus Sanjay Mehta. ………….Respondent Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the revisionist. Ms. Prabha Noliyal, learned counsel for the respondent. Present revision under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal of Procedure is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 05.08.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in case no. 239 of 2004 thereby dismissing the application of the revisionist / wife under section 125 Code of Criminal of Procedure. Brief facts of the present case are that present revisionist is the wife of respondent. Revisionist has filed one application seeking maintenance against the husband / respondent. Learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that revisionist wife is living separately from husband without any reasonable excuse. Learned Trial Court also recorded finding of fact that wife herself has filed suit for dissolution of marriage while husband has filed suit for reconciliation of marriage under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Learned Trial Court further recorded that husband has shown his willingness 2 to take wife along without any terms and conditions. Learned Trial Court further recorded that wife is not ready to go with her husband without any reasonable cause. Not only this Trial Court has referred the statement of wife made on oath in which she stated that she does not want to go with her husband and she is living in her parental house by her own will and there is no pressure on her to live separately in her parental house. She further stated that she has filed suit for dissolution of marriage because she does not want to live in the village of husband. This court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 210 of 2005 (Ganesh Singh Nagarkoti Vs. State of Uttarakhand) decided on 02.12.2009 has held that if wife without any reason or ground is living separately, then in view of section 125 (4) of Code of Criminal of Procedure she is not entitled for any maintenance. This court while exercising revisional power cannot sit over the judgment passed by courts below and is not suppose to re-appreciate the evidence. Moreover, from perusal of the record, finding of facts recorded by the Trial Court seems to be justified. In view of the above, there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court. Revision is devoid of merit and as such is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 10.12.2009 SKS