IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.197 OF 2003 Zakir Hussain … Revisionist Versus Jameela Khatoon … Respondent Dated: July 26, 2010 Sri TA Khan, Adv. for the revisionist Ms. Seema Sirohi, Adv. for the respondent 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.7.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, US Nagar in Case No.119 of 2002, Jamila Khatoon Vs. Zakir Hussain. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2-Smt. Jamila Khatton moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the allegations that her husband (revisionist) during the lifetime of respondent, solemnized another marriage with Saida Khatoon and is residing with her. That in the year 1995 when the revisionist solemnized another marriage, and on her resistance against it, she along with her sons were ousted and for this she also filed a case against the revisionist, however in that case a compromise was arrived in between them. That since the revisionist had accepted earlier to give divorce to the respondent, hence he again solemnized the marriage with the respondent and for some time she along with her children stayed at the revisionist’s house and again he ousted them several times. That finally on 1.7.2001, the revisionist ousted her from the house and since then she is living along with her children having no source of income. The revisionist is working in Pantnagar Farm and his monthly income is Rs.6000/- per month and he also earns money by grocery shop and selling milk of animals 2 and as such, Rs.2000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist appeared before the court and denied the allegations made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned order thereby directing the revisionist to pay Rs.800/- per month for his wife and Rs.200/- per month each for her two children, in total Rs.1200/- per month. Hence this revision. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the respondent stated that the revisionist gets Rs.6000/- per month as salary from Pant Nagar Farm and he also gets Rs.2000/- per month from the grocery shop and milk business. On the contrary, the revisionist himself showed his monthly income Rs.3600/-. Even the trial court after a detailed analysis came to the conclusion that the revisionist could not prove that the respondent was earning sufficient money to maintain herself. The trial court after considering the income shown by the revisionist himself as Rs.3600/- per month, awarded the maintenance of Rs.800/- per month for respondent’s own maintenance and Rs.200/- each for her two children, in total Rs.1200/- per month. From the overall analysis of the matter, I find that the court below rightly awarded the maintenance amount against the revisionist and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 24.07.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, US Nagar. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 05.12.2003 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 26, 2010 Rajeev Dang