IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.262 of 2007 Nabarun Banerjee, S/o Sri A.Bandhopadhyay, R/o 46, Ist Floor, Ashoka Enclave, Sector-34, Faridabad –121003 (Hariyana) … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another … Respondent Dated: December 11, 2008 Sri Pawan Mishra, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 Sri Vijay Khanduri, Adv. for Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 22.11.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.216/2005, Smt. Preeti Banerjee Vs. Nabarun Banerjee, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2. 2. Heard Sri Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and Sri Vijay Khanduri, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent No.2- Smt. Preeti Banerjee moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 26.11.2004 as per Hindu RITES and her parents spent money in the marriage beyond their status. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started mentally harassing the respondent no.2 and even the jewellery and other articles given by the parents of respondent no.2 were kept by the mother of the revisionist. It was also stated that she, being a traditional and cultured Indian woman, continued to bear the same in order to save her married life. On 2.6.2005, mother of respondent no.2 took her at her house with some clothes of daily use and the entire jewellery as well as other articles are with her in-laws. On 12.6.2005, her husband came on an invitation from the parents of respondent no.2. When she also shown her willingness to go along with her husband, then her husband asked her to stay for some more time at her parental house. Thereafter, several times she called her in-laws to take her from there but all were in vain. In the last of August, 2005, when she requested her husband to take her along with him, then her husband strictly refused to take her and asked her that he has done a blunder by marrying with her and her husband also told that he is preparing to take divorce from her and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that she is an unemployed lady having no source of income and as such is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the revisionist is working as Assistant Manager in an International Company from where he gets Rs.40,000/- per month as salary. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and he only admitted the factum of his marriage with respondent no.2 on 26.11.2004 and has denied rest of the averments made in the application. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 after hearing the parties and appreciating the material on record, directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent no.2 towards maintenance. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.11.2007, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has erred by awarding excessive amount of maintenance against the revisionist. It was further submitted that the respondent no.2 herself is working in a private office from where she earns Rs.5,000/- per month. There is no force in the argument of counsel for the revisionist as the court below in this regard has recorded a finding that the revisionist himself had not denied the fact that he was not getting Rs.40,000/- per month as salary. Besides this, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he took a house of Rs.13.00 lacs and he is also paying Rs.10,000/- per month towards the installment. There is no explanation from the side of the revisionist that if he is not earning the aforesaid amount, then how he is paying the monthly installment. Even the revisionist had not adduced any copy of his resignation or receipt thereof before the court below. So far as the factum with regard to income of respondent no.2 is concerned, the respondent no.2 has categorically stated before the court below that she is not employed anywhere and have got no source of income. She also clearly denied the fact that she is working as a Teacher or she is teaching tuitions. Even the revisionist had not disclosed the name of any institution where the respondent no.2 was said to have been working. Thus, the court below after analyzing the aforesaid position of the case, rightly reached to the conclusion that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and rightly held the monthly income of the revisionist to be Rs.40,000/- per month. As such, the court below rightly awarded the amount of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and because of the revisionist’s mal-treatment, 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 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 19.12.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 11.12.2008 Rajeev Dang