HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 153 of 2007 Devendra Singh S/o late Sri Satay Singh, R/o village Upper Chopla, Near Patwari Chowki, P.S. Kotwali Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, 2. Smt. Shivani Singh D/o Sri Jagat Singh, R/0 11/1-6 Nammi Road, Police Station Dalanwala, Dehradun. ------- Respondents Mr. Mohd. Azim, holding brief of Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Tanuj Semwal, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri H.S. Rawal, holding brief of Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Dated: 24th June, 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 of the Family Court Act has been directed against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2007 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case no. 117 of 2004 Smt. Shivani Singh vs. Devendra Singh whereby the revisionist-husband was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife-respondent no.2 in place of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of the order. 2. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent- wife moved petition u/s 127 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist- husband for enhancement of the maintenance already awarded to her with the averments that in the year 2001 income of the revisionist was Rs. 30,000/- per month from the businesses i.e. contracts, tuitions, selling & purchasing land and selling vegetables & fruits. Now the revisionist has been enrolled as an Advocate and he earns Rs. 15,000/- per month in addition to his previous income. The revisionist has concealed this fact. The 2 petitioner-wife has no source of income whatsoever. Against this petition the revisionist moved objection and denying the averments of the petitioner-wife it was admitted that he is an Advocate, but under apprenticeship. In support of their version; the parties led their evidence. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order has enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 1,000/- per month to Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of order i.e. from 23.06.2007. Aggrieved with this order the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 3. At the stage of admitting the revision, this Court on 24.07.2007 stayed execution of the impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2007 subject to the condition that the revisionist will pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent no.2 by the 10th of each month, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated automatically. 4. Heard Mr. Mohd. Azim, holding brief of Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Tanuj Semwal, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri H.S. Rawal, holding brief of Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the impugned judgment & order passed by the Trial Court and other relevant papers available on record. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Mohd. Azim, holding brief of Sri Sandeep Tandon has submitted that he has moved an application no. 482/2008 seeking withdrawal of the revision and he may be permitted to withdraw the revision. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Sri H.S. Rawal, holding brief of Sri V.B.S. Negi did not appose the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist. 3 6. Otherwise also, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 23.06.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order 24.07.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. 7. The withdrawal application no. 482/2008 stands disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.06.2008 NCM: