IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.26 OF 2008 Yogesh Malhotra ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…... Respondents Dated: July 30, 2010 Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate 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 24.1.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in case no.188 of 2004, Smt. Sonam v. Yogesh Malhotra, whereby the learned Principal Judge allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2 from the date of order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 got married to the revisionist on 30.3.2004 in Dehradun as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage, parents of respondent no.2 had given dowry beyond their status, but the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they started committing marpeet with her for the same from the second day of the marriage. It is alleged that when the brother of respondent no.2 came to take her, the revisionist and his family members kept her 2 Stridhan with them and made a demand of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter ousted her from the house. It is alleged that since then she is residing at her parental house and the revisionist has not paid any heed towards her. It is further stated that the revisionist owns a shop where he sells cycle and from there he earns Rs.50,000/- per month. On the other hand, it is stated that the respondent no.2 is having no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. With these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He has admitted the fact of marriage with respondent no.2 but has denied rest of the averments made in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 24.1.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the amount of maintenance as awarded by the court below against the revisionist is excessive. I do not find force in the argument put forth by learned counsel for the revisionist. Respondent no.2 has stated in her application that the revisionist has a shop of cycle and earns Rs.50,000/- per month. On the other hand, the revisionist has stated that the shop of cycle is of his father and he works in the shop and earns Rs.3,000/- per month. In this regard, the court below has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist is the only son of his parents and, being the son, he is the 3 only heir of that shop. Thus, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the financial status of the revisionist, the court below rightly awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance amount to be given to the respondent no.2 against the revisionist from the date of order. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting by revisionist for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her though he has got sufficient means to maintain her. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent no.2 for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 8. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 24.1.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 30, 2010 RG