IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 76 of 2009 Anand Singh Dasila S/o Khusal Singh R/o Kunaphokari Hall –Near Kalika Mandir, Bindukhata, Post Lalkuwa, District Nainital. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Smt. Baghwati Devi W/o Anand Singh Dasila R/o Vilalge Papoli, Post Papoli, Tehsil Bhnoli, District Almora. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mrs. Seema Sirohi (Sah), Advocate for respondents 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 14 of 2009, whereby said court has directed the revisionist Anand Singh Dasila (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 Smt. Bhagwati Devi (wife), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.). 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Bhagwati Devi got married to the revisionist Anand Singh Dasila 14 years before presenting the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. She pleaded that out of the wedlock a son was born, who was aged 11 years at the time of presentation of the application. It is further pleaded that the revisionist ousted the respondent No. 2 from his house and she was compelled to live in her parental house. She was beaten and had become retarded due to the injuries suffered at the hands of her husband. It is also pleaded that her father has also become old, and is unable to maintain her. Lastly, it is pleaded that the revisionist has not only agricultural land in his ancestral village Kunaphokari, District Almora, but also in Bindukhatta, Post Lalkuan (District Udham Singh Nagar). Apart from this, it is alleged that the revisionist does carpentery work and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4) The revisionist filed his written statement before the trial court, but admitted having married to the respondent No. 2, and that a son was born out of the wedlock, who is living with the revisionist. Rest of the allegations are denied by the revisionist. 5) The trial court after recording the evidence found that the revisionist has neglected his wife (respondent No. 2) in maintaining her. The trial court also found that the revisionist earns Rs. 5,000/- per month. Said factual satisfaction is recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. It is also found by the trial court that the respondent No. 2 is unable to maintain herself. 6) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is a poor Carpenter. He is an agriculturist, and his income of Rs. 5,000/- per month, has been wrongly assessed by the trial court. 7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that the revisionist is an unskilled worker whose actual income can be assessed at Rs. 3,600/- per month. Since, son of the parties to matrimony is living with the husband, in the facts and circumstances of the case, direction to the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month to his wife (respondent No. 2) would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.03.2009, deserves to be modified. 8) For the reasons as discussed above, this revision is disposed of modifying the impugned order dated 24.03.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 14 of 2009, with the direction that the revisionist Anand Singh Dasila shall pay Rs. 1,200/- per month from the date of application to the respondent No. 2, as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The revision stands disposed of, accordingly. (Both Stay Application No. 550 of 2009 as well as Urgency Application No. 1390 of 2010 stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 16, 2010. H. Negi