IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.226 of 2011 Arif S/o Sri Ajmuddin, R/o Bhuda Kaimore, P.S. Amarya, District-Pilibhit, U.P. ….…..Revisionist Versus Smt. Nahid W/o Sri Arif, D/o Sri Akeel Aahmad, R/o Ward No.3, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. ……Respondent Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision is directed against the order dated 22.07.2011, passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 165 of 2008, whereby said court has directed the revisionist Arif (husband) to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month to his wife Nahid (respondent) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist got married to the respondent on 05.05.2007, following the Muslim rites. It is alleged by the respondent in her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., that she was ousted by her husband 2 from his house on 07.11.2007. She has further pleaded that she has no means to maintain herself, as she is an illiterate woman. It is pleaded by her that her husband has 2.5 Acres of agricultural land and he also knows repairing work of Television sets. 4) On the other hand, it is pleaded by the revisionist before the trial court that respondent insisted the revisionist to stay away from his family and on being not obliged, she left the house of the revisionist (husband). It is also pleaded by the revisionist that he is simply “IMAM” in a mosque and his income is only ` 700/- per month. 5) The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing them, assessed the income of the husband at ` 3,000/- per month, out of which ` 1500/- per month were directed to be paid to the respondent. 6) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is ready and willing to take back his wife to his house. However, from the evidence on record, it appears that the respondent left the house of her husband on being treated with cruelty. The finding of the trial court that the income of the husband is ` 3,000/- per month is based on the evidence on record and does not require any interference. Considering the economic status of the parties and income of the husband, in the facts and circumstances of the case, direction to the respondent to pay maintenance @ ` 1200/-to his wife would have met the ends of justice. 3 7) Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2011, passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 165 of 2008, is modified with the direction that the revisionist shall pay ` 1200/- per month to his wife as maintenance from the date of application i.e. 12.08.2008. He is allowed to make payment of the arrears of maintenance amount (Minus the amount already paid as interim maintenance) within a period of one month from today. The future maintenance shall be paid by 10th of every month. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 14.11.2011 JM