IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.151 OF 2003 Laxman Singh S/o Sri Hukum Singh R/o Madhur Vihar, Ajabpur Khurd District Dehradun ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Sarita Devi W/o Sri Laxman Singh R/o Sirmaur Tea Estate, Loharwala, Kaulagarh Road Police Station Cantt, District Dehradun …... Respondent Dated: November 18, 2008 Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist. None is present for the respondent 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 9.9.2003 passed by Family Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Misc. Matrimonial Case No.742/2002, Smt. Sarita Devi Vs. Laxman Singh, whereby the learned Family Judge has allowed the application moved by the respondent-Smt. Sarita Devi u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 23.10.2002. The arrears were also directed to be paid in six equal installments along with the amount of maintenance by the 10th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire material available in file. None is present for the respondent, though the list has been revised. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent-Smt. Sarita Devi got married with the revisionist on 3.3.2001 as per Hindu RITES and in the marriage, the parents of the respondent spent Rs.3-4.00 Lacs. However, soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing the respondent for the demand of dowry. It was also stated that the revisionist used to commit Marpeet with the respondent. It was further stated that the parents of the respondent also gave Rs.25,000/- in cash however the atrocities continued increasing day after day. It was also stated that due to harassment by the revisionist and his family members, she is compelled to live at her parental house and her entire Stridhan was kept by the revisionist and she came at her parental house in her wearing clothes. It was also stated that the revisionist is a Constable in Army from where he earns Rs.7,000/- per month as salary. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month was sought as maintenance by the respondent against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application moved by the respondent u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 9.9.2003, directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9.9.2003, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has passed the excessive amount of maintenance against the revisionist without any evidence. There is no force in the argument raised by 3 learned counsel for the revisionist for the reason that the court below in his judgment has rightly recorded a finding that in the marriage, the parents of the respondent gave dowry beyond their status however the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with that and they continued to demand cash in dowry. Therefore, the court below came to the conclusion that the cruelty was committed with the respondent by the revisionist and his family members. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the court below after perusing the salary slips of the revisionist, has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist earns Rs.7,000/- per month as salary and therefore, the court below rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly argued that the court below has erred by directing the revisionist to pay amount of maintenance from the date of application i.e. 23.10.2002. He further prayed that the amount of maintenance may be directed to be paid by the revisionist from the date of order passed by the court below and not from the date of application. I find force in this argument raised by counsel for the revisionist. After a perusal of the judgment and order passed by the court below, it emerges out that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the judgment by the court below for awarding the amount of maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to award the amount of maintenance from the date of order passed by the court below, i.e., 9.9.2003. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she is unable to maintain herself and due 4 to harassment committed by the revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife/respondent. Therefore, the court below has rightly directed the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent against the revisionist. 7. For the reasons as recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 9.9.2003 passed by the court below is modified only to the extent that the amount of maintenance shall be paid by the revisionist from the date of order i.e. 9.9.2003 and not from the date of application. Interim order dated 10.10.2003 passed by this Court is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.11.2008 RG