IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2008 Daleep Kumar ………..Revisionist Versus Smt. Manju @ Mansi and others …..Respondents. Present: Mr. R. P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Pawan Misra, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Decision: 08.09.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J(Oral) Heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. Pawan Misra, Advocate for the respondents. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the Family Court, Dehradun by which the application moved by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint moved by the wife i.e. respondent no.1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been fixed as maintenance i.e. Rs.3,000/- for wife and Rs.2,000/- for minor child/son who is admittedly living with the wife. The court below has given a finding that the monthly income of revisionist is Rs. 12,000/- per month and based on that finding maintenance has been fixed. The family court has also given a finding that the wife is not in a condition to support herself or to support her son. The revisionist has, however, pleaded that apart from his wife and son he has parents who are in an advanced age and who depend upon the revisionist. Statement has also been made at the bar that during the pendency of the present revision before this Court, a suit for divorce, which was filed by the wife, was dismissed on the basis of some earlier compromise and undertaking given in the Court. However, respondent no. 1 states that she is ready to live with her husband. It is stated at the bar that the revisionist has filed a suit under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Dehradun. It has also been stated at the bar that the wife has also filed a case bearing No. 344 of 2008 under Sections 12/17/18/19/20/21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in which as an interim measure right of residence has been given to the wife. On these set of facts, since respondent no.1 is wife and respondent no.2 is minor son, it is the responsibility of the husband to give maintenance. The financial position of the revisionist is also considered. Therefore, it is directed that instead of total maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- fixed by the court below, the revisionist shall give respondent no.1 a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month and respondent no.2 a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 4,000/- per month in total as maintenance on or before the 10th day of every month. The arrears shall also be calculated as per the amount of maintenance fixed by this Court and shall be given to respondent no.1 within three months from today. It is directed that the findings given by the court on maintenance fixed will have no effect on the proceedings which is pending before the court below. It is clarified that the amount which is presently being given by the revisionist to respondent nos.1 and 2 will be liable to be adjusted. With these observations, the present revision is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 08.09.2010 Avneet