IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.90 OF 2008 Sanjeev Agarwal S/o Radhey Shyam Agarwal R/o Budha Bazar, Manpur, Goyal Nagar, District-Muradabad ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Namita Agarwal 2. Master Shivam 3. Km. Divya …... Respondents Dated: December 1, 2008 Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist Sir Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No.62/2007, Smt. Namita Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjeev Agarwal, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- for respondent no.1 and Rs.750/- per month each for respondent nos.2 & 3 (in total Rs.2,500/- per month) as maintenance allowance from the date of application. It was also directed that the arrears shall be paid within one month. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 10th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal stating therein she got married with the revisionist on 31.10.1991 as per Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock Master Shivam-respondent no.2 and Km. Divya- respondent no.3 were born. It was also stated that after the marriage behaviour of the revisionist and his family members was very cruel towards respondent no.1. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.1 for the demand of dowry. It was also stated that after six months of the marriage, parents of respondent no.1 gave Rs.1.00 Lac in cash to the revisionist in order to run her married life smoothly but even after that behaviour of the revisionist and his family members did not change and they continued to harass respondent no.1 for the demand of dowry. On 25.7.2004 after committing Marpeet with respondent no.1 she was ousted from the house by the revisionist in her wearing clothes and the revisionist kept the two children with him. Since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that on 14.6.2006 respondent no.1 got the information that her son Shivam- respondent no.2 has ran away from Muradabad. Thereafter she lodged the missing report of his son at Muradabad. Then after about seven months respondent no.2 was found in a hotel working there as a servant and he also told the cruelty committed by the revisionist and his family members to the police. Then the respondent no.1 took her son to Kotdwar with her and on June 2006 family members of the revisionist also left respondent no.3-daughter at Kotdwar. Since then both the children are living with respondent no.1. It was also stated that the respondent no.1 is living at her parental house and she has no source of income in order to maintain herself 3 and her children. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist is a double M.A. and he has a joint business of steel utensils with his father and brothers and is also having a shop of retail utensils and from all sources he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.1 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist has not filed his objection to the application moved by the respondent no.1. In this regard, the revisionist appeared before the court below and admitted respondent no.1 to be his legally wedded wife and also admitted two children born from their wedlock. He also admitted the fact that he is double M.A. but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material on record, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 31.3.2008, directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 31.3.2008, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.1 was ousted from the house by the revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry. Due to the ousting by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house and she has got no source of income and therefore is unable to maintain herself and her children. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting respondent no.1 for the demand of dowry though he has 4 got sufficient means to maintain respondent nos.1, 2 & 3. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, revisionist is a double M.A. and he has a joint business of steel utensils with his father and brothers and is also having a shop of retail utensils and from all sources he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the court below rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- for respondent no.1 and Rs.750/- per month each for respondent nos.2 & 3 (in total Rs.2,500/- per month) as maintenance allowance from the date of application. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 31.3.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 22.5.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 01.12.2008 RG