IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.221 of 2004 Vijay Pal Singh … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents Dated: April 28, 2009 None is present for the revisionist though list has been revised Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State Sri B.M. Pingal, Adv. for 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 24.09.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.144/2002, Smt. Sunil Chaudhary Vs. Vijay Pal Singh, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2. 2. None is present for the revisionist though list has been revised. I have heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri B.M. Pingal, Adv. for Respondent No.2 and also perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Sunil Chaudhary moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 24.4.1998 with the averments that she is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and out the said wedlock, two children were born. She further stated that the revisionist is working as a Fitter at BHEL, Hardwar from where he gets Rs.6,500/-per month as salary. She further stated that she is residing separately from the revisionist and she has got no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her children and she has to depend on her relatives for maintenance. She further stated that the revisionist gets Rs.6,500/- per month salary and he has got no other responsibility. Besides this he has also got some agricultural land from where he also earns handsome money. The revisionist also filed his written statement in which he denied most of the averments made in the application. He also stated his salary as Rs.3,588/- per month. On that application on 18.2.2003, on the consent of both the parties, an amount of Rs.2,000/- was accepted to be paid by the revisionist to respondent no.2 as interim maintenance by the order of court below. After that on the date when the statement of the respondent no.2 was recorded before the court below, she disclosed the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.14,000/- per month towards salary. Besides this, monthly income from agricultural land was shown as Rs.60,000/- per annum. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating all the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2 from the date of order. Prior to date of passing of order, the court below directed that the respondent no.2 shall be entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.9.2004, the present revision has been preferred. 4. The present revision has been preferred mainly on the ground that the court below has wrongly awarded monthly maintenance to respondent no.2 against the revisionist. There is no force in this ground. As per the evidence discussed above, respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she is residing at her parental house along with her children. For a period of 10 years, efforts for compromise were going on but all were in vain. Accordingly, she is compelled to stay at her parental house. So far as the maintenance is concerned, as much of amount is to be awarded towards maintenance so that the respondent no.2 can easily maintain herself and her children. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and in his evidence, he himself has admitted that his monthly salary is Rs.13,000/- per month. Besides this, the revisionist is also having agricultural land from where also he derives some income. Therefore, the court below after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case rightly allowed the monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 for Rs.5,000/- per month. 5. In view of the above-said discussion, it is proved that the respondent nos.2 is unable to maintain herself and her children and due to the behavior of revisionist, she along with her children is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife and children though he is having sufficient means to maintain them. 6. For the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. 7. In view of the above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 12.1.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 28, 2009 Rajeev Dang