RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.11 of 2006 Dinesh Kumar Thapa … Revisionist Versus Smt. Sangita Thapa and another … Respondents Dated: March 31, 2009 Sri M.K. Goyal, Adv. for the revisionist Sri L.K. Tewari, Adv. for Respondent No.1 Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Crl. Case No.193 of 2003, Smt. Sangeeta Thapa @ Sanjana Vs. Dinesh Kumar Thapa, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,800/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent No.1 from the date of filing of petition. Heard Sri M.K. Goyal, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri L.K. Tewari, Adv. for Respondent No.1, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material on record. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1- Smt. Sangeeta Thapa moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 21.02.2000 as per Hindu RITES and her father gave dowry as per his capacity. After the marriage she was not treated properly by the revisionist and his mother and they raised quarrel even on petty matters. The elder brother of her husband used to abuse her under intoxication. The mother in law of the respondent no.1 ousted her from the house after hurling filthy abuses only after seven months after the marriage. She intimated her husband, who is posted in Indian Army about this incident by a letter. In November, 2000 her husband came to house after taking leave and returned back with the assurance that she will not be ill-treated but thereafter also there was no change in the habits of her mother in law and the elder brother of her husband even by her making them understand and her repeated requests. Whenever her husband came home after taking leaves, he was induced by her mother-in-law and the elder brother of her husband against her, hence he also started ill-treating the respondent no.1. In the month of February 2003 when she was sick, she was ousted by her mother in law from the house only in wearing apparels and she hardly reached to the house of her father at Raipur. The mother and sister of the respondent no.1 went to the house of revisionist to make her mother understand, but she did not pay any heed rather threatened them to kill respondent no.1. It was further stated that the revisionist is serving in Indian Army and getting Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. Besides this, he has 4-5 bighas of agricultural land and in this way the monthly earning of revisionist is Rs.20,000/- per month, while the applicant has no income of her own and she generally remains sick. As such an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.1 against the revisionist. The revisionist appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun per judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has erred in awarding maintenance against the revisionist. The court below has recorded a finding that after his retirement, revisionist was paid Rs.5,14,000/- as retirement benefits and he is getting Rs.5,000/- per month as pension. It was further held that although the revisionist has no dependency, but he may have to discharge several family obligations towards relatives and friends and considering such social obligations, it was rightly held that he can easily spare a sum of Rs.1,800/- per month. By way of interim order passed by court below, the respondent no.1 was getting Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance and after considering the fact that the revisionist has retired and getting pension amounting to Rs.5,000/- per month, hence the court below rightly awarded Rs.1,800/- per month as maintenance to the respondent no.1 against the revisionist. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent no.1 is unable to maintain herself and due to the reason that she was ousted 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 his wife, though he has got sufficient means to maintain her. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25.10.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 7.2.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 31, 2009 Rajeev Dang