IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 30 of 2007 Ajay Kumar Arya .…. Revisionist Versus Smt. Angita & Anr. ……… Respondents October 25, 2010 None for the revisionist. Mr. SK Shandilya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Misc. Case No. 189/2006, Ajay Kumar Arya v. Smt. Angita u/s 125(5) read with Section 127(2) CrPC, whereby the learned court below has ordered to issue the recovery warrant against the revisionist and dismissed the aforesaid application of the revisionist which was filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 whereby the application of the respondent no. 1 under Section 125 CrPC was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to the respondent no. 1 with effect from the date of making the application i.e. 17.11.2003. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC stating that she was married to the revisionist on 5.3.2001 as per Hindu rites and her parents had given dowry more than their status. Soon after the marriage, her husband/revisionist and her in-laws started harassing her for the dowry and demanded Rs. 50,000/-. On 6.5.2002, she was also beaten by her husband/revisionist and her in-laws 2 with lathis and danda and thereafter she came to her maternal house and since then she has been living there. With these averments she moved the aforesaid application claiming maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month by stating that she is illiterate and she has got no source of livelihood, whereas the revisionist has enough agricultural land and he is also engaged in dairy business and he earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. The revisionist contested the case by filing his objections. Both the parties also adduced their evidence. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Additional Family Judge, Roorkee vide judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent no. 1 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 800/- per month with effect from the date of making the application i.e. 17.11.2003. Thereafter revisionist moved an application under Section 125(5) read with Section 127(2) CrPC for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 on the basis of changed circumstances, which was dismissed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee vide judgment and order dated 9.2.2007 holding that all the grounds raised by the revisionist have already been discussed at the time of passing the judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 on the maintenance application of the respondent no. 1 and further also directed to issue the recovery warrant against the revisionist. Hence, this revision has been filed by the revisionist. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. None appeared for the revisionist despite service. 3 5. Perusal of judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 and 9.2.2007 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. Revisionist has got sufficient agricultural land and the respondent no. 1 also filed khatauni papers of the land in support of her case. Revisionist is also engaged in dairy business. Thus, he has got sufficient means, whereas the respondent no. 1 is a poor and illiterate lady and she has got no source of livelihood and she has been deserted and neglected by the revisionist. Hence, in these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of properly maintaining his wife. Furthermore. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 800/- cannot be said to be excessive by any standard when the revisionist has got sufficient means to maintain his wife, whereas the respondent no. 1 is a poor and illiterate lady and she has got no source of livelihood and thus she is unable to maintain herself. Hence, in these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee and the same requires no interference by this Court. 6. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Misc. Case No. 189/2006, Ajay Kumar Arya v. Smt. Angita u/s 125(5) read with Section 127(2) CrPC is hereby affirmed. 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the concerned Family Court for making the necessary compliance. (Dharam Veer, J.) 25.10.2010 PRABODH