IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.55 OF 2002 Sheeshpal Singh Negi ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Mamta Negi & another …... Respondents Dated: April 24, 2009 None is present for the revisionist Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/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 27.6.2002 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.432/2002, Smt. Mamta Negi Vs. Sheespal Singh Negi, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the application moved by the respondent no.1/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist/husband and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of the respondent no.1, from the date of filing the application i.e. 20.9.2001, by the 10th of each month. 2. List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. Perused the entire material available in file. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1/wife Smt. Mamta Negi moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that the marriage between her and the revisionist was solemnized on 7.3.1999 as per Hindu RITES at Arya Samaj Mandir, Karanpur, Dehradun. In the marriage, her parents had given dowry as per their status. After the marriage, the behaviour of the revisionist and his family members remained normal but after sometime their behaviour changed. Her mother-in-law started harassing her by saying that she has brought nothing in dowry from her house and demanded Rs.50,000/- cash. On her refusal, the revisionist and his mother committed Marpeet with her several times but she continued to bear the same due to bounds of decency. They also stopped giving her food. When the cruelty of the revisionist and his family members reached to the extent then she moved an application for maintenance against the revisionist in her husband’s department. Then on 12.9.2000 compromise took place between them and the revisionist accepted before the employees of his factory that he will pay Rs.1,300/- per month to her. After that both of them came to their home but even after that she found no change in the behaviour of her husband/revisionist. He forced her to leave the house. On 15.9.2000, the revisionist and his sister beaten her due to which she received injuries and they ousted her from the house by giving threat to her life. Thereafter the respondent no.1 went to her house and told the entire incident to her mother. Then, she was medically been examined at Doon Hospital and a complaint in this regard was also filed on 18.9.2000. Case u/s 498-A is pending against the revisionist. It was also stated that she is having no source of income and is dependent on her mother who is also unable to maintain her daughter. On the other 3 hand, it was stated by the respondent no.1 that the revisionist is posted as Technician at Ordnance Factory from where he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. Besides this, he was also shown to be doing Cement business from where also he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month was sought by the respondent no.1/wife for maintenance of herself against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and was examined as D.W.1. He did not file any written statement against the application moved by the respondent no.1/wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 27.6.2002 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. The present revision has been assailed mainly on the ground that the amount of maintenance as awarded by court below against the revisionist is excessive. The respondent no.1-Smt. Mamta Negi leveled a charge against the revisionist and his family members that they have ousted her from their house due to demand of dowry. She also stated that her husband (Revisionist) is posted as Technician at Ordnance Factory and earns Rs.10,000/- per month towards salary. Besides this, he also does Cement business from where also he gets Rs.20,000/- per month. In this regard, the revisionist appeared before the court below and was 4 examined as D.W.1. He admitted his income to be Rs.8- 8,500/- per month but denied the fact that he is doing Cement business. Thus, after considering the own admission of revisionist and considering the fact that respondent no.1 has no source of income, the court below rightly awarded the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.1/wife against the revisionist. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.1-Smt. Mamta Negi is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting by 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 his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent no.1 for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.6.2002 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 24, 2009 Rajni