IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 302 of 2011 with Stay Application No. 1510 of 2011 Vishal Aggarwal S/o Sri Arun Kumar Garg R/o Geeta Bhawan No.3 Behind Radha -Radha Hotel, near Swarg Ashram Ramzula, Rishikesh District Dehradun .....................Revisionist Versus 1. Smt Hemlata Agarwal W/o Vishal Agarwal D/o Sohan Singh R/o 8A, Type-2, Sector-1 B.H.E.L, Ranipur Mode Tehsil and District Hardwar 2. Nannu S/o Vishal Aggarwal through his natural guardian mother Smt Hemlata Agarwal 3. Lucky S/o Vishal Aggarwal through his natural guardian mother Smt Hemlata Agarwal Both residing with their mother at 8A, Type-2, Sector-1 B.H.E.L, Ranipur Mode Tehsil and District Hardwar ………....….......Respondents Shri Tanuj Semwal, Advocate, present for the revisionist. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) This revision is directed against order dated 03.11.2011, passed by Judge Family Court, Hardwar in Case No. 160 of 2010, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 3,000/- per month to his wife and ` 1,000/- per month to each one of his children, living with the wife. (3) Brief facts, of the case, are that revisionist Vishal Agarwal got married to respondent no.1 Smt. Hemlata Agarwal on 02.03.2006. The two sons were born out of the wedlock. It is alleged by the respondent no.1 that she was ousted from the house of her husband after she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been further pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and her children. It is also alleged by the respondents that the revisionist is a businessman, who is running business in the name of 'Ganga Dry cleaners' and 'Rafting' and 'Tour and Travels'. Apart from this it is alleged that his taxies are running, as 3 such, he is earning ` one lac per month. (4) The revisionist has filed written objections before the trial court, but the marriage with respondent no.1 and birth of the two children is admitted. It is also admitted that children are now school going, and only defence taken by the revisionist before the trial court, is that his monthly income is only ` 3,000/- per month which he earnes as a employee in a shop. The trial court after hearing the parties, and after going through the papers on record, passed the impugned interlocutory order directing the revisionist to pay interim maintenance at the rate of ` 3,000/- per month to his wife and each of his children. The revision against the interim interlocutory order is not maintainable. (5) Accordingly, the revision is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.15.12.2011 N.P 4