IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 100 OF 2007 Sri Manbeer Singh Chauhan S/o Sri Ghirpal Singh, R/o village Tulyara, (Sunar Gaon), Patti Gamri, Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi. ……… Revisionist Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand, 2.Smt. Sheela W/o Sri Manbeer Singh Chauhan, R/o village Tulyara (Sunar Gaon) Patti Gamri, Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi, At present R/o Dhanola Petrol Pump, Old Tehri Road Chamba, District- Tehri Garhwal. .……….Respondents Dated: August 20 , 2008 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. None of respondent no.2. 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.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Revision no. 49/2006 Smt. Sheela vs. Manbeer Singh Chauhan and another, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision preferred by Smt. Sheela-respondent no.2 and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for deciding the matter afresh. 2. List is revised. None has responded on behalf of respondent no.2. I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the state and perused the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Sheela moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the 2 revisionist Manbeer Singh Chauhan before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal for award of maintenance for herself with the averments inter-alia that she is legally wedded wife of the revisionist Manbeer Singh. After two years’ of her marriage behaviour of her in-laws was proper, but thereafter they started harassing her for demand of dowry; she was beaten to fetch Rs. 1 lac as dowry. In the month of July 2003 she was again beaten with the complaint that the jewelry given in marriage is artificial. When she fallen ill, no treatment was provided to her. She remained in her in-laws’ house for 10 months, but they did not care for her, hence she came to her parental house. When she again came back to her in-laws’ house, she was forced to leave their house. It is alleged that the revisionist is employed in private service at Noida and he contracted second marriage. All her jewelry was snatched. On one hand she has no means of livelihood, whereas the revisionist is getting Rs. 15,000/- per month as salary, hence a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month was demanded as maintenance. Refuting the averments made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he refuted the allegations of demand of dowry. It is stated that the petitioner herself left the house. Although, he went to take her back but she refused to accompany him without sufficient cause. His income has been shown exaggerated. It is submitted that the revisionist is earning Rs. 5-6 thousands per month only. Both the parties led their evidence before the trial court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned trial court vide his judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 dismissed the petition filed by the wife-respondent no.2. Aggrieved with this order, the wife-respondent preferred revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, who vide his impugned order dated 30.04.2007 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to be decided afresh. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 30.04.2007, the husband-revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Revisional Court has erred while setting-aside the order of the trial court and remanding the matter back to the trial court. Further the Revisional Court has not taken into consideration, the written statement of the revisionist in which he has stated that he is ready to keep his wife with him. The Revisional Court did not consider the material fact that the wife has refused to come back to her in-laws’ house. But on perusal of the impugned order, the Revisional Court has reached to the conclusion that the trial court has not considered the need of the petitioner and there are sufficient reasons for the wife to live separate. The Revisional Court further held that the revisionist had neglected his wife even he did not made genuine efforts to bring her back. It is further observed that when the matter was heard by the trial court, the husband-revisionist was not willing to keep his wife and to maintain her. The Revisional court has come to the conclusion that the husband never cared for his wife for a long period of one year even in her disease. For the just decision of a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the factum of marriage between the parties, surviving sources or need of the wife, income of the husband and negligence on the part of the husband ought to have been considered. The factum of marriage is conceded by the revisionist. Although, the revisionist has alleged that his wife has alternative source of income, but no evidence in this regard is produced. Thirdly, the revisionist in annoyed with the filing of the petition, therefore he has stated on oath that previously he was ready to keep his wife with him but as she has filed a case and, now he is not ready and willing to keep and maintain her. On one hand the petitioner is still willing to accompany with her husband while the revisionist had neglected her even he did not made genuine efforts to bring her back. The Revisional court has further came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court is not supported by any evidence. The Revisional court has fully considered the petition as also the written objection of the 4 revisionist while passing the order impugned. The Revisional court arrived to the conclusion that there is no reasonable cause to disbelieve the version of the petitioner. The Revisional court has also come to the conclusion that the evidence of the petitioner was totally ignored by the trial court and the findings recorded by the trial court are self contradictory. Hence, the learned Revisional Court after considering the evidence available on the record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order impugned and rightly remanded the matter back for deciding it afresh, which does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.04.2007. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.08.2008 NCM