IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.36 OF 2007 Ajay Bhaseen S/o Sri Dharam Dev Bhaseen R/o 23 Rest Camp West Dehradun ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Kumud Bhaseen 3. Km. Jyoti (Minor) D/o Ajay Bhaseen …... Respondents Dated: December 24, 2008 Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State 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 the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Case No.66/05, Smt. Kumud Bhaseen & another Vs. Ajay Bhaseen, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2-Smt. Kumud Bhaseen and Rs.500/- per month for maintenance of her minor daughter namely-Km. Jyoti (in total Rs.1,500/- per month) from the date of order. 2. I have heard Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Prabhkar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Kumud Bhaseen moved an 2 application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, stating therein that she was married with the revisionist on 22.7.2000 according to Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock, respondent no.3- Km. Jyoti was born on 22.8.2002. It was stated that just after the marriage the revisionist and his family members began to torture respondent no.2, mentally and physically, for the demand of dowry. It was also stated that when respondent no.3-Km. Jyoti was born, the revisionist was expecting a son and due to this reason respondent no.2 was ousted from the house. Since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that despite all the mental and physical cruelties, parents of respondent no.2 tried their best to rehabilitate respondent no.2 in the matrimonial home but all in vain. It was also stated that the revisionist is doing a job and he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated that respondent no.2 was having no source of income, she is totally unable to maintain herself and her daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month was sought for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.2,500/- per month for maintenance of her minor daughter-respondent no.3. 4. The revisionist also 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. 5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 3 21.12.2006, directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.12.2006, the revisionist has come up in revisionist before this Court. 6. Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that that the parties have entered into compromise outside the court on 02.02.2008. Comprise filed by the revisionist is taken on record today. Due to this reason, he does not want to press the present revision and prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 7. Even, otherwise I have perused the judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 14.03.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.12.2008 RG