1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2010 Maya Ram, S/o Shri Sant Ram R/o Purviya Basti, Patelnagar P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun .……….Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Suman, W/o Maya Ram D/o Shri Devi Chand R/o New Patelnagar, Near Ashok Jain Bulb Factory P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun …………Respondents Shri Deepak Bisht, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri T.C. Agarwal, A.G.A., present for the State. Shri M.K. Goyal, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 11.08.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in case no. 10 of 2005, whereby said court has directed the revisionist Maya Ram to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 2,500/- per month to his wife Suman 2 (respondent no. 2), under section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts, of the case, are that revisionist got married to respondent no. 2 on 10.03.2003 at Dehradun. It is alleged by the respondent no. 2 in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C., that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband (revisionist), and ultimately ousted from his house. It is also pleaded by her that she is unemployed, and her husband earns ` 10,000/- per month. She has claimed maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month 4. On the other hand, revisionist pleaded before the trial court that respondent no. 2 left his house without any sufficient cause. He also stated that he is a poor man who earns his livelihood by selling tea on a THELA. 5. The trial court, after recording evidence found that the marriage between the two is an admitted fact. It was also found proved on record that respondent no. 2 has no means to maintain herself. It was also found that the revisionist had neglected to maintain his wife. Considering the 3 economic status of the husband, the trial court directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 2,500/- per month to his wife. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist pleaded before this Court that the revisionist is a poor man who earns his livelihood by selling tea on a THELA, and unable to pay the maintenance at the rate of ` 2,500/- per month to his wife. On going through the papers on record, and after hearing the parties, this Court finds that it is not proved on record that the revisionist earns ` 10,000/- per month. However, still he is liable to pay maintenance to his wife. Considering the economic status of the revisionist regarding whom it has come on record that he earns his livelihood by selling tea on a THELA, this Court is of the view that the direction to the revisionist to pay maintenance to his wife @ ` 2,000/- per month to his wife would met the ends of justice. 7. Therefore, this revision is disposed of modifying the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, vide order dated 11.08.2010, in case no. 10 of 2005, and 4 it is directed that the revisionist Maya Ram shall pay ` 2,000/- per month (instead of ` 2,500/- per month) as maintenance to his wife under section 125 Cr.P.C., in terms of the order passed by the trial court. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 25.07.2011