HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 03 of 2005 Hawaldar Clerk no. 6387299 Devendra Singh S/o late Sri Bishan Singh r/o ASC Battalion Supply G; Permanent R/o village Chandini Chowk Balutiya, P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus Smt. Durga Devi W/o Sri Devendra Singh, D/o Sri Jeet Singh, r/o village- Kuwadaanth, P.S. Kaladhungi, District Nainital. ------- Respondents None is present for the parties. Dated: July 16, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Crl. Case no. 71 of 2001 Smt. Durga Devi vs. Devendra Singh by which the petition filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application. It is directed that the arrears thereof be paid within 30 days. It was further directed that while making payment of arrears a sum of Rs. 16,500/- be deducted, as the same has been paid in lieu of interim maintenance. 2. On the previous date i.e. on 14.07.2008 learned counsel for the revisionist was also absent and on the request of Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent the case was adjourned and listed for final hearing for today. The case is listed under the caption of FINAL HEARING. List is revised, but none has responded either for the revisionist or for the respondent therefore the court itself proceeded further. 3. From perusal of the record is reveals that the respondent- wife filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband- 2 revisionist for awarding maintenance to her. It is stated in the petition that marriage in between her and the revisionist Devendra Singh was solemnized on 11th June 1997 according to the Hindu rituals. After the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The revisionist wanted to give divorce to her and when she refused to make signatures on divorce deed, the revisionist tried to kill her by administering poison to her. She was taken to hospital. In continuity of her physical and mental torture, she was ousted by the revisionist from his house on 27.05.2000 and from that day he did not pay any heed towards her and no maintenance was given to her. The petitioner has no means of livelihood and she is residing with her brother. The revisionist is in active service of Indian Army and he receives salary @ Rs. 9,000/- per month. Besides it, he owns 50 Bighas land and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. Denying the averments made in the petition, the revisionist-husband filed his written objection. Although he accepted the marriage in between the parties, but he refuted the allegations of cruelty done in relation to the demand of dowry. It is averted that he does not want to give divorce to her. It is further stated that the respondent-wife herself took poison and at that time he was not with her at home. He never ousted her from his house rather the respondent herself left his house. It is accepted that his salary is Rs. 6,500/- per month. Thereafter the parties led their oral evidence. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing upon learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court vide order dated 17.12.2004 directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent- wife from the date of filing of the application. It is directed that the arrears thereof be paid within 30 days. It was further directed that while making payment of arrears a sum of Rs. 16,500/- be deducted, as the same has been paid in lieu of interim maintenance. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 3 4. The impugned order has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that the Court below has awarded excessive amount as maintenance which is beyond the means and resources of the revisionist. But from perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly established that there is reasonable cause to the respondent-wife to live separately. The Court below while awarding maintenance has considered the financial condition of the parties. On one hand the respondent-wife has no means of livelihood, while on the other hand salary of the revisionist- husband is established as Rs. 6,500/- per month. By not paying any heed towards the respondent-wife and by avoiding maintenance to her, itself proves the negligent conduct on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist could not show that the respondent-wife has alternative source of income. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application of the wife filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application. Further, it was directed that the arrears thereof be paid within 30 days and it was further directed that while making payment of arrears a sum of Rs. 16,500/- be deducted, as the same has been paid in lieu of interim maintenance, which in my opinion is reasonable and the order impugned does not warrant any interference at this stage. 5. On a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 7. The interim order dated 12.01.05 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.07.2008 NCM: