IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.63 OF 2005 Naveen Batra S/o Sri Harish Batra R/o Mohalla Awas Vikas Colony, District Shahjahanpur (U.P.) ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others …... Respondents Dated: November 14, 2008 Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for 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.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.372/2002, Smt. Meenakshi and another Vs. Naveen Batra, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.3, in total Rs.2,000/- per month. It was also directed that the respondent no.2 would be entitled to get Rs.1,300/- per month as interim maintenance before the date of order. 2. I have heard Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 19.11.2000 as per Hindu RITES. The father of respondent no.2 gave sufficient dowry as per his status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with respondent no.2 due to demand of dowry. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members started physical and mental harassment of respondent no.2 due to demand of dowry and also demanded Rs.1.00 Lac in cash. It was also stated that out of the said wedlock one son was born. Due to marriage of the sister of the revisionist on 28.6.2002, the revisionist and his family members demanded Rs.1.00 Lac in dowry from respondent no.2. On 20.6.2002, the revisionist and his family members committed marpeet with respondent no.2 and she was ousted from the house in her wearing clothes and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that respondent no.2 does not know any such type of work by which she could maintain herself and her son. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist has a printing press in Shahjahanpur from which he earns Rs.15-20,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.2,500/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.3 was sought as maintenance against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by respondent no.2 and denied most of the allegations. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 16.3.2005 directed the 3 revisionist as above. Against the said judgment and order dated 16.3.2005, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. During the course of arguments, Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court and now respondent no.2-wife is living with the revisionist. Due to this reason, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he does not want to press the revision and prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 6. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 16.3.2005 passed by the trial court and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the said judgment and order does not requires any interference by this Court. 7. For the reasons recorded above the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 8.4.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.11.2008 RG