IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.105 OF 2007 Satish Rikhari, S/o Late Sri Shankar Datt Rikhari, R/o Narvada B/28 Atomic Power Nagar Mumbai. ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Tara Rikhari, W/o Satish Rikhari & two others. …... Respondents Dated: 6th August, 2008 Sri Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Milind Raj, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.3. 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 30.5.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Misc. Criminal Case No.17/06, Smt. Tara Rikhari & another Vs. Satish Rikhari, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1-Smt. Tara Rikhari and Rs.2,500/- for her minor daughter namely-Km. Heeya (in total Rs.7,500/- per month) from the date of order. 2. Sri Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Milind Raj, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 3 are present. 2 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.1-Smt. Tara Rikhari moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital on 24.2.2006, stating therein that she was married with the revisionist on 2.12.2003 according to Hindu rituals. It was stated that after the marriage the revisionist took the respondent no.1 with her at Mumbai. It was also stated that the father of respondent no.1 gave sufficient dowry as per his status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and soon after the marriage, they started harassing her for their demand of dowry. It was further averted that when the respondent no.1 got pregnant, the revisionist left respondent no.1 at her parental house. Thereafter, on 3.12.2004 respondent no.1 gave birth to a daughter. After sometime the revisionist took respondent no.1 with him at Mumbai. However, after sometime the revisionist again started physical and mental harassment of respondent no.1 on the ground of dowry. It was further averted that on 12.6.2005, she was again left at her parental house by the revisionist and since then she is residing at her parental house being dependant on her father. It was further averted that the revisionist was posted as Manager in ICICI Bank, from where he earns Rs.40,000/- per month. Besides this, revisionist was also having a house at Mumbai which was also let out on rent from where he was getting Rs.10,000/- per month rent. On the other hand, it was stated that respondent no.1 was having no source of income, she is totally unable to maintain herself and her daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month was sought for maintenance of respondent no.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month for maintenance of her daughter- 3 respondent no.2. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by the respondent no.1 and denied the averments made in the application. 4. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 30.5.2007, allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1 and Rs.2,500/- for maintenance of her minor daughter-Km. Heeya (in total Rs.7,500/- per month) from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.5.2007, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 5. Sri Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the revisionist stated at bar that the present matter has been settled outside the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 6. Even, otherwise I have perused the judgment and order dated 30.5.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 6.6.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 6.08.2008 NCM