IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.59 OF 2006 WITH MISC. WITHDRAWL APPLICATION NO.390/09 Rajeev Ratan Singh S/o Late Virendra Pratap Singh ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Seema Singh ..…... Respondents (2) CRIMINAL REVISION NO.96 OF 2006 WITH MISC. WITHDRAWL APPLICATION NO.391/09 Rajeev Ratan Singh S/o Late Virendra Pratap Singh ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Seema Singh ..…... Respondents Dated: April 16, 2009 Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.1 None is present for the respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. The revisionist in both the revisions is one and the same and both the revisions are co-related with each other, hence both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Criminal Revision No.59 of 2006 has been preferred against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 17.2.2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.69/05, Smt. Seema Singh Vs. Rajeev Ratan Singh, whereby the learned Additional Principal Judge allowed the application 2 moved by the Respondent No.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay arrears from the date of filing the application i.e. 26.5.2005 @ Rs.5,000/- per month within 30 days. Thereafter, from the date of order i.e. 17.2.2006 onwards, the revisionist will pay Rs.5,000/- per month to Respondent Nos.2. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 10th of each month. 3. Criminal Revision No.59 of 2006 has also been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.28/06, Seema Singh Vs. Rajeev Ratan Singh, by which recovery notice was issued against the revisionist for recovering the amount of Rs.45,000/- towards the amount of monthly maintenance. 4. The same revision (CRLR No.59/2006) has also been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 28.3.2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.28/06, Seema Singh Vs. Rajeev Ratan Singh, by which in non- compliance of the recovery notice, recovery warrant was issued against the revisionist and it was directed that in case recovery is not made, warrant of arrest would be issued against the revisionist. 5. Criminal Revision No.96 of 2006 has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Crl. Case No.25/2006, Rajeev Ratan Vs. Smt. Seema Singh, whereby the learned Additional Principal Judge has rejected the application moved by the revisionist u/s 3 126(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.2.2006. 6. Heard Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2-Smt. Seema Singh moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 9.5.2004 as per Hindu RITES and in the marriage, on the demand of the revisionist and his family members, her father gave sufficient items. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and for this reason they used to harass her physically and mentally. They used to pressurize her for bringing more dowry from her house. When the respondent no.2 said to the revisionist that her father has given him Rs.3,50,000/- cash for buying house and showed her inability to bring more dowry then the revisionist and his family members beaten her number of times. It was also stated that in the marriage the father of the respondent no.2 gave a Splendour motorcycle and a double bed but even after that the revisionist and his family members continued their demand of dowry. In September, 2004, the revisionist and his family members committed Marpeet with her and keeping her entire jewellery and items they ousted her from the house in her wearing clothes. The revisionist and his family members also threatened her brother and father that if the respondent no.2 will not bring Fridge, T.V., etc. from her house then they will kill her. It was also stated that the revisionist is posted as Stenographer in a Government Department from where he is getting Rs.10,000/- as salary. Besides this, he owns a residential house and from all sources, he 4 was shown to be earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated that the respondent no.2 is having no source of income. She is unable to do any work so as to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought by the respondent no.2 for maintenance of herself against the revisionist. The notices were issued to the revisionist and service was also reported to be sufficient upon him through the newspaper “Amar Ujala”, however he did not appear in the court nor he filed any written statement, hence on 6.2.2006, the matter was directed to be proceeded ex-parte. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital after perusing the entire material available on record vide his judgment and order dated 17.2.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.2.2006, the revisionist preferred an application u/s 126(2) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the aforesaid ex-parte judgment and order dated 17.2.2006 on the ground that he had no knowledge about the aforesaid case. After appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 27.4.2006 rejected the application of the revisionist moved u/s 126(2) of Cr.P.C. Since the revisionist did not comply with the order dated 17.2.2006 and also did not pay the amount of maintenance, so the respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125(3) of Cr.P.C. for recovering the amount Rs.45,000/- towards monthly maintenance. On that application, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his order dated 24.3.2006, issued recovery notice against the revisionist. Thereafter, in non-compliance of the above-said order, recovery warrant were issued against the revisionist by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital and it 5 was directed that in case recovery is not made, arrest warrant would be issued against him. Against the aforesaid judgments and orders dated 17.2.2006, 24.3.2006, 28.3.2006 and 27.4.2006, the revisionists have preferred the present revisions before this Court. 8. Misc. Withdrawl applications No.390/09 and No.391/09 have been filed by the learned counsel for the revisionist with the prayer to withdraw the aforesaid revisions and to dismiss the same as withdrawn. 9. Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid revisions the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court. Hence, she prayed that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the revisions may be dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and orders dated 17.2.2006, 24.3.2006, 28.3.2006 and 27.4.2006 passed by court below and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and orders. 11. For the reasons recorded above, both the revisions are dismissed. Interim orders dated 21.04.2006 and 05.05.2006 passed by this Court in CRLR No.59/2006 stand vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.04.2009 RG