IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.110 OF 2007 Madan Gopal S/o Badhu Ram R/o Village Tedaghat Tehsil Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Usha Devi W/o Madan Gopal 3. Km. Ram Nandani @ Depanshi ……… Respondents Dated: December 23, 2008 Sri B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State Sri Amish Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 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(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Case No.164 of 2006, Smt. Usha Devi & another Vs. Madan Gopal, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.3 from the date of application i.e. 24.8.2006, by the 7th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State as well as Sri Amish Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Usha Devi moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C before the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar against the revisionist stating therein that she was married with the revisionist-Madan Gopal before five years as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage, father of respondent no.2 gave sufficient dowry as per his status. It was also stated that after six months of the marriage, the revisionist started harassing respondent no.2 and also started committing Marpeet with her. Information to this effect was given by respondent no.2 to her family members. Then on this, Panchayat was called in the parental house of respondent no.2 and the revisionist was directed not to harass respondent nos.2 & 3 in future otherwise fine will be imposed upon him. Even after that the revisionist continued harassing respondent no.2. Due to the harassment committed by the revisionist, respondent no.2 left the revisionist’s house in her wearing clothes along with her daughter on 15.7.2006. It was also stated that the revisionist is having 2 acres of agricultural land and he also does agriculture on contract. On the other hand, it was stated that respondent no.2 is dependant upon her parents and she is living at her parental house with her daughter. It was also stated that the financial condition of her father is not good and is therefore unable to maintain respondent no.2 and her daughter. With the same averments, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.3 was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and has admitted the fact of marriage with respondent no.2 and also a daughter born from their wedlock but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 1.5.2007, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she is unable to maintain herself and due to harassment committed by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house along with her daughter. The revisionist is intentionally neglecting respondent no.2 for the demand of dowry though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife-respondent no.2. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, after considering the fact that the revisionist is earning about Rs.10,000/- per month from doing agriculture work in contract and he is also having 2 acres of land, has rightly awarded the maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month for respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month for respondent no.3 (in total Rs.3,000/- per month) from the date of application i.e. 24.8.2006. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 1.5.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 12.06.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.12.2008 RG