IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.200 of 2005 Ashwani Kumar … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and others … Respondents Dated: April 20, 2009 Sri H.C. Pathak, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Adv. i/b Sri Vinod Sharma, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Crl. Case No.443 of 2002, Smt. Anjana Sharma and others Vs. Ashvini Kumar, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.9,500/- per month to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 for their maintenance. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that marriage in between the parties took place on 27.11.1986 at Dehradun according to Hindu RITES and out of the said wedlock, respondent nos.3 and 4 were born. It was also stated that the revisionist also filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent no.2 for divorce. Further, the respondents have no means of income as respondent no.2 is unemployed and respondent nos.3 and 4 are minors and they are studying. On the other hand, the revisionist is employed as Asstt. Grade-I in ONGC and his monthly salary is Rs.30,000/- per month and he has also other source of income. The house of the revisionist is also in possession of the respondents and they have to pay house tax, water tax and electricity charges etc. The respondents are entitled to lead their life as per the standard of the revisionist. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- each was sought as respondent nos.2 to 4 against the revisionist. The revisionist also filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2005 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.9,500/- per month to respondent nos.2 to 4 for their maintenance. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the court below has erred by awarding excessive amount of maintenance. I do not find any force in this argument. The court below has recorded a categorical finding in its judgment that the revisionist has neglected to maintain the respondents, while they are unable to maintain themselves. It was held that since the respondent no.2 is the wife and respondent nos.3 and 4 are the daughters of revisionist, therefore, it is the legal duty of the revisionist to maintain them. About the income of the revisionist, the Income Tax Return of the revisionist was produced before the court below in which his income from the salary was shown as Rs.2,81,541/-. Another document viz. report of Chartered Accountant was also produced in which the revisionist’s income for the year ending on 31.3.2003 has been shown Rs.3,01,541/-. The revisionist did not file his latest pay slip before the court below, therefore it was held that he could not deny the fact that he is getting Rs.26,800/- per month as salary. The court below after considering the medical status of the revisionist came to the conclusion that the revisionist needs Rs.5,000/- per month for his maintenance. So far as the requirements of respondents are concerned, the court below has rightly held that the respondents are also liable to be maintained as per the status of the revisionist. The respondents are residing in a house which is constructed by the revisionist. As per the evidence of respondents, the court below came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2-wife needs Rs.1,500/- per month towards the payment of house tax, water tax, electricity, Chowkidar, Sweeper, milk and ration etc. and Rs.1,500/- for her personal expenditure. Thus, the court rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent no.2 needs Rs.3,000/- per month. The court below has also held that respondent nos.3 and 4, who are daughters of revisionist, needs Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month respectively for their tuitions and study and other requirements. Therefore, after considering the above-said facts and circumstances of the case, the court below rightly reached to the conclusion that the respondent nos.2 to 4 need Rs.9,500/- per month for their maintenance and accordingly the said amount was awarded by the court below against the revisionist. 5. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent No.2 is unable to maintain herself and her two daughters and they have been neglected by the revisionist while they are unable to maintain themselves. On the other hand, the revisionist is having sufficient means to maintain his wife and daughters. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 26.07.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 07.10.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 20, 2009 Rajeev Dang