HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 856 of 2001 (Old no. 1232/2000) Ramesh Chandra Singh S/o Sri Madho Singh, R/o Rajeev Nagar, Ajabpur Tanda, Dehradun. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand, 2.Smt. Manju Devi D/o late Avtar Singh, 3.Km. Sunita D/o Ramesh Chandra, 4.Km. Arti D/o Ramesh Chandra, 5.Master Ankit S/o Ramesh Chandra, All residents of village & Post Kandubar, Patti Ajmer, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist or for the private respondents, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Dated: August 1, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2000 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in maintenance case no. 12 of 1998 Smt. Manju vs. Ramesh Chandra by which while disposing of the interim maintenance application-25Kha, the Court below directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month to respondent no.2-wife, and Rs. 200/- per month each to the three children-respondent nos. 3 to 5 (total Rs. 900/- per month) as interim maintenance which shall be adjusted at the time of final decision of the application moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It was further directed that the first installment shall be paid on 4th May 2000. 2. In this revision on the request made by the learned counsel for the revisionist a number of dates have been fixed by the Court. Today also, none is present either on behalf of the revisionist or for the private respondents. The case is listed 2 under the caption of FINAL HEARING. List is revised, but none has responded either for the revisionist or for the private respondents therefore the court itself proceeded further. Heard Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and perused the record as well as the order impugned. 3. From perusal of the record is reveals that the respondent no.2 Smt. Manju moved an application before the Trial Court against the revisionist with the averments that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month may be awarded as maintenance for herself and for her three minor children till the decision is taken on merits in her petition preferred u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It is stated that she is the first legally wedded wife of the revisionist and marriage in between her and the revisionist was solemnized on 22nd April 1977. It is further stated that all the three children are minors and are dependent upon her. All three children are studying. She has no source of income. She often fell sick. In support of her version, the respondent no.2 filed marriage certificates given by the Gram Pradhan-Udhiyari and Kathoolbara, the original letter sent by the revisionist on 13.08.1981 to his elder brother, copy of the Pariwar Register of Gram Sabha Kathoolbara, certificates issued by the Head Master-Primary School-Kathoolbara and Principal G.I.C. Kandakhal (Langoor)-Pauri and certificate issued by the Garm Panchayat-Lansdowne, per list 19-Kha. The revisionist filed his objection stating therein that the respondent no.2 is not his legally wedded wife. It is conceded that respondent nos. 3 to 5 took birth as a result of his relation with respondent no.2. It is stated that he had given agricultural land to the applicant and out of the agricultural products the applicant and the children are being maintained, hence the applicant is not entitled for further maintenance. The revisionist did not produce any evidence in support of his version. The Court below after hearing learned counsel for the parties vide his order dated 29.04.2000 directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- 3 per month to respondent on.2, and Rs. 200/- per month each to the three children-respondent nos. 3 to 5 (total Rs. 900/- per month) as interim maintenance which shall be adjusted at the time of disposal of application moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It was further directed that the first installment would fall due on 4th May 2000. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. The impugned order has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that the Court below has awarded excessive amount as maintenance which is beyond the means and resources of the revisionist. But from perusal of the impugned judgment and order the Court below has reached to the conclusion that the respondent no.2 by producing documentary evidence has proved the marriage solemnized on 22nd April 1977 between her and the revisionist. The Court below found that the name of the respondent no.2 Smt. Manju Devi is mentioned in the Pariwar Register as the wife of the revisionist Sri Ramesh Chandra. The revisionist nowhere has rebutted that the extract of the Pariwar Register is fabricated. It has also come in the judgment of the Court below that the revisionist had remarried and he is in Govt. job, but for the sake of securing his Govt. job he is concealing his first marriage solemnized with respondent Smt. Manju Devi. Although the revisionist has submitted that the respondent no.2- Smt. Manju Devi was legally wedded wife of his late brother and after the death of her husband she started living with him and the three children were born out as a result of his relation with her and for their welfare, he had given agricultural land to her, therefore she is not entitled for further maintenance, but the revisionist did not prove his version through any documentary evidence. Thus, the Court below found the objection baseless. The Court below has considered the plea of marriage solemnized in between the revisionist and respondent no.2 and found that the respondent no.2-Smt. Manju Devi is legally wife of the revisionist Ramesh Chandra. 4 On one hand the respondent-wife has no means of livelihood to maintain herself and her three children, while on the other hand the revisionist is posted as S.D.I. By not paying any heed towards the respondent-wife and the children and by avoiding maintenance to them, itself proves the negligent conduct on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist could not show that the respondent-wife has alternative source of income. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application of the wife and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month to respondent on.2, and Rs. 200/- per month each to the three children-respondent nos. 3 to 5 (total Rs. 900/- per month) as interim maintenance which shall be adjusted at the time of disposal of application moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It was further directed that the first installment would fall due on 4th May 2000, which in my opinion is reasonable and the order impugned does not warrant any interference at this stage. 5. Otherwise also on a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 29.04.2000 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 7. Interim order dated 13.07.2000 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 01.08.2008 NCM: