IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2 OF 2006 Sanjay Kumar S/o Sri Surendra Kumar R/o Saidpurj Tehsil Nukur P.S. Sarsawa, District Sahanpur (U.P.) ……… Revisionist Versus Presiding Officer/Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar & another …... Respondents Dated: 6th August, 2008 None for the revisionist or for respondent no.2. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.1 is present. 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 18.11.2005 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.133/04, Smt. Lalita Vs. Sanjay Kumar, whereby the learned Additional Family Judge has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,200/- per month as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2 from the date of application i.e. 1.10.2004, by the 19th of each month. 2. List has been revised. There is no representation either on behalf of the revisionist or on behalf of respondent no.2. However, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State is present for respondent no.1. 3. In brief the prosecution case is that respondent no.2-Smt. Lalita got married with the revisionist on 4.5.2003 as per Hindu rituals. The father of the respondent no.2 gave dowry as per the status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the respondent no.2 due to demand of dowry. For this reason, they started physically and mentally harassing respondent no.2. It was also stated that on 20.7.2004, the revisionist and his family members committed marpeet with respondent no.2 and thereafter the revisionist left her at her parental house. It was also stated that the respondent no.2 is not a well-qualified woman and she also does not know knitting, sewing work and due to this reason she has not having any source of income. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist is well-qualified man and he is also running a private nursery school and he is also doing other various business from where he earns Rs.40,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by the respondent no.2 and denied the averments made in the application. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material on record, learned Additional Family Judge, Roorkee vide her judgment and order dated 18.11.2005 allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,200/- per month as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2 from the date of application i.e. 1.10.2004, by the 19th of each month. 6. In the present case on 17.3.2005, the court below directed the revisionist to pay Rs.600/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent no.2. In compliance of the said order, the revisionist also agreed to pay the sum. The revisionist also admitted before the trial court that he is doing the tuitions. In regard to the income of the revisionist, the respondent no.2 has specifically stated that the revisionist is running a private nursery school and he has opened a dairy adjacent to the nursery school. Besides it; he gives tuitions to the students and deals with the work of property dealing. In support of her version, the respondent no.2 has annexed photographs of the coaching centre in which not only his name but also name of his father find figure. In this respect no specific denial is there on behalf of the revisionist. Although the revisionist has tried to prove his income but the Court below reached to the conclusion that there was contradiction between the income certificate and the statement of the revisionist. Thus, the court below has rightly reached to the conclusion that the revisionist was trying to hide his income. Keeping in view these circumstances it is observed that the revisionist has sufficient source of income, as he tried to conceal his income. Hence, the learned court below after considering the evidence available on the record, rightly allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 and also rightly directed to pay Rs.1,200/- per month as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2 from the date of application i.e. 1.10.2004, by the 19th of each month. 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 18.11.2005. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 04.01.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 6.08.2008 NCM