HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 12 of 2005 Om Prakash S/o Sri Bishan Dass, R/o village Subash Ghat, P.S. Patheri, District Haridwar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus Km. Nisha aged about 12 yrs. (minior) D/o Om Prakash, Through Guardian “NANA” Chaman Lal S/o Anant Ram, R/o village Subash Ghat, P.S. Patheri, District Haridwar. ------- Respondents Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Bhuwanesh Joshi, holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. Dated: July 15, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. case no. 32/2004 Km. Nisha vs. Om Prakash whereby the maintenance earlier awarded to the respondent-daughter was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 750/- per month instead of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of order i.e. from 17.12.2004, payable by the revisionist-father. 2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bhuwanesh Joshi, holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent- daughter moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist before the Trial Court with the averments that her mother Smt. Pawan Devi was married to the revisionist Om Prakash and she was born as a result of this marriage. At the time she filed the petition u/s 127 Cr.P.C., she was aged 12 years’. On account of matrimonial discord, her parents are 2 living separately. Her parents are divorcee and both have remarried. Now the petitioner is residing with her maternal grandfather. She is now dependent upon her maternal grandfather who has no source of income. On the petition no. 16/1999 Pawan Devi vs. Om Prakash filed by her mother for maintenance, the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) on 19.03.1999 directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent-daughter, but the revisionist did not pay any penny in this regard after June 2002. As the respondent-daughter is studying in Class-VIII and the prices of essential commodities have been hiked, therefore it is impossible to maintain the life on the meager sum of Rs. 400/- per month. The revisionist is an Ex-Army person and he receives Rs. 5,000/- per month as pension, besides it he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and dairy business. In these circumstances, she may be granted maintenance in accordance with the enhanced rates i.e. Rs. 4,000/- per month. The revisionist-father contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. Although he admitted the marriage and the birth of his daughter, but he submitted that on a PANCHAYAT, his wife stopped to receive maintenance on account of her second marriage. It is submitted that the maternal grandfather of the respondent had kept the respondent-daughter with him illegally. As he himself is the natural guardian of her daughter and is eager to keep her with him, thus the application is not entertainable. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 enhanced the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 750/- per month instead of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of order i.e. from 17.12.2004, payable by the revisionist-father. Aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the learned Trial Court has erred in enhancing the maintenance vide his impugned judgment dated 17.12.2004 and keeping in 3 view the facts and circumstances this Court at the time admitting the revision has stayed operation of the impugned order subject to the condition that the applicant/revisionist continue to pay Rs. 400/- p.m. to the respondent Km. Nisha. But, it has come in the judgment of the Trial Court that the earlier maintenance to the tune of Rs. 400/- was directed to be paid to the respondent on the compromise arrived at between the parties on 19.03.1999 and at that time the respondent- daughter was aged about 7 years’. In the petition u/s 127 Cr.P.C. the respondent-daughter has averted that now she has achieved the age of 12 years’ and is studying in Class VIII. It is further averted that the income of the revisionist is 15,000/- per month. The Court below while allowing the application of the respondent-daughter u/s 127 Cr.P.C. considered the financial condition of the parties and accordingly, the Court below found reasonable means in enhancing the maintenance as above. By not paying any heed towards the respondent-daughter and by avoiding maintenance to her after June 2002, itself prove the negligent behaviour on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist could not show that the respondent-daughter had alternative sources of income. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application of the wife filed u/s 127 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay enhanced maintenance @ Rs. 750/- per month to his daughter from the date of order i.e. from 17.12.2004, which in my opinion is reasonable and the order impugned does not warrant any interference at this stage. In these circumstances, the revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 6. The interim order dated 27th January 2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.07.2008 NCM: