IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.131 OF 2007 Mohdammed Furkan … Revisionist Versus Smt. Gulshan Firdosh … Respondent Dated: July 29, 2010 Sri Gopal Krishan, Adv. for the revisionist Km. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Adv. i/b Sri RP Nautiyal, Adv. for the respondent 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, US Nagar in Case No.36 of 2006, Smt. Gulshan Firdosh Vs. Mohd. Furkan. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2-Smt. Smt. Gulshan moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance with the allegations that since September 2005 she is residing with her parents as a burden inmasuch as her father is a teacher and hardly he upkeeps his family. The revisionist had ousted her during pregnancy and she gave birth to a daughter in a Nursing Home in which Rs.11000/- were spent. The revisionist is a rich man and having a Television Shop and is a Distributor of Uttaranchal. After the death of father of revisionist, assets amounting to crores had come in his share, Khatauni of which was also annexed, and by that land he earns Rs.1000/- per day. As such she sought Rs.5000/- incurred towards the litigation expenses and Rs.11000/- as expenses incurred towards the medical expenses of respondent. The revisionist appeared before the court and denied the allegations made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned order thereby allowing the application for interim maintenance and directing the revisionist to pay Rs.1000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent from the date of application i.e. 27.9.2006 and also to pay Rs.5000/- in lumpsum as litigation expenses. Hence this revision. The respondent stated before the court below that she is residing in her parental house as a burden since September 2005 and is unable to bear the litigation expenses. On the contrary, the revisionist is having a Television Shop and is also a distributor of Salora Company in Uttaranchal. Besides he is also having assets of crores left by his father in his name, Khatauni whereof was also produced by the respondent. The revisionist denied that he is a Distributor however did not deny the income derived out of the said property. As such, the court below rightly held that the revisionist is having sufficient means and he is fully competent to pay the interim maintenance to the respondent. Accordingly, the court below allowed the application of respondent and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of application i.e. 29.7.2006 and also Rs.5000/- in lumpsum as litigation expenses. From an overall analysis of the matter, I find that the court below rightly awarded the interim maintenance amount and litigation expenses against the revisionist and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 16.05.2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, US Nagar. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 26.06.2007 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 29, 2010 Rajeev Dang