IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.201 OF 2004 Rai Kanwar S/o Sri Bihari Lal R/o House No.219 Type-III, Sector-1 B.H.E.L. Ranipur P.S. Ranipur District Haridwar ……… Revisionist Versus Family Judge, Family Court, Haridwar & another …... Respondents Dated: November 4, 2008 Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.2 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 21.9.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.192/2002, Smt. Snehlata Vs. Rai Kanwar, whereby the learned Principal Judge directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2 from the date of the order. It was also directed that respondent no.2 would be entitled to get maintenance prior to the date of order @ Rs.2,000/- per month. 2. I have heard Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available on record. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Snehlata moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist before 30 years’ as per Hindu RITES. It was also stated that out of the said wedlock two daughters were born. It was also averted that from the beginning, the revisionist was involved in bad habits and he has spent the entire money in fulfilling his bad habits. However, she could manage to maintain herself and her daughters. It was also stated that respondent no.2 always tried to persuade her husband-revisionist several time but all was in vain and the revisionist wasted the entire money. It was also stated that the revisionist is working in BHEL, Ranipur, from where he was shown to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month as salary. On the other hand, it was stated that she is a domestic lady and does not know sewing or knitting work. It was also stated that she did not have any source of income in order to maintain herself and also unable to marry her daughters. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. Since the revisionist did not appear before the court below, therefore, on 24.9.2002, the court below allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 ex-parte against the revisionist and directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent no.2 from the date of application, i.e., 30.04.2002. After that the revisionist moved an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. with the prayer to set aside the ex-parte order dated 24.9.2002 passed against him. After hearing the parties and appreciating the material available on record, the court below vide its order dated 12.06.2003 allowed the application moved by the revisionist and set aside the order dated 24.9.2002 and directed the revisionist to pay interim maintenance Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife 3 and Rs.1,000/- per month to his daughter (in total Rs.2,000/- per month) until further orders. Thereafter on 21.9.2004, the court below finally allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.9.2004, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order solely on the ground that the court below has awarded the amount of maintenance against the revisionist without appreciating the evidence on record. I do not find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist. In this regard, the revisionist appeared before the court below and was examined as D.W.1 and had admitted his income to be Rs.34,000/- per month. The court below, after considering the financial status of revisionist and considering the fact that respondent no.2 has no source of income, rightly awarded the amount of maintenance. Besides this, the revisionist himself admitted before the court below that he earns Rs.34,000/- as salary. Therefore, after considering the own admission of the revisionist, the court below rightly awarded the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that respondent no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the revisionist have got sufficient means and the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance whereas respondent no.2 have got no source of income. Therefore, the application 4 moved by respondent no.2 was rightly been allowed by the court below. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.9.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 30.11.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 04.11.2008 RG