IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.17 of 2006 Tilak Ram S/o Hari Ram, R/o Rajpur Ghasmandi, Near Kali Mandir, P.S. Rajpur, Dehradun … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & two others … Respondents Dated: September 18, 2008 Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for Respondent No.1 None present for respondent Nos.2 & 3 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 07.02.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.160/2004, Smt. Savitri Devi & another Vs. Tilak Ram, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent No.2-Smt. Savitri Devi u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of Respondent No.3-Km. Tannu, in total Rs.1,500/- per month. 2. I have heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available in file. No one appears for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, though service is reported to be sufficient. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent No.2- Smt. Savitri Devi moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Dehradun stating therein that she was married with the revisionist on 4.2.1999 at Dehradun according to Hindu Rituals and out of this wedlock, three daughters were born, out of which two daughters expired due to mal-nutrition. The revisionist used to treat the respondent no.2 with cruelty under intoxication for the demand of dowry. On 6.4.2004, she was ousted from the house by the revisionist after belabouring her and since then she is living with her parents, but the revisionist did not pay any amount for her and her daughter’s maintenance. It was also stated that she did not have any source of income, while the revisionist earns Rs.5,000/- per month by doing work of mason. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent No.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also filed his objections admitting the marriage and birth of three daughters and denied rest of the allegations. It was also alleged that he remains ill and hardly earns for him, while the respondent no.2 earns Rs.3,000/- per month by tailoring work. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 7.2.2006 allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of Respondent No.3-Km. Tannu, in total Rs.1,500/- per month. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7.2.2006, the present revision has been preferred. 4. The present revision has been assailed mainly on the ground that the income of the revisionist was not proved by respondent no.2 from her documentary evidence, but court below committed illegality in holding the income of revisionist as Rs.3,000/- per month. In this regard, the respondent no.2 has stated in her application that the revisionist earns about Rs.5,000/- per month by doing the mason work. On the other hand, the revisionist himself admitted in his objection that he does the labour work and earns about Rs.1,500/- per month. The court below in this regard has rightly recorded a finding that as per the revisionist, if he is taken as a labour, he must have been getting more than Rs.100/- per day i.e. more than Rs.3,000/- per month. The court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, income of the revisionist and also the fact that since the respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist, has rightly held that it is the moral, legal and social duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife and daughter. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and her daughter and due to ousting of revisionist for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist has got sufficient means and he is intentionally neglecting his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of Respondent No.3-Km. Tannu, in total Rs.1,500/- per month. 5. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 7.2.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 17.2.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) September 18, 2008 Rajeev Dang