IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.184 OF 2008 Chetan Shankar Vashna S/o Sri Prem Shankar Vashna R/o House No.276-B, Gali No.2, Sanjay Nagar Police Station-Kavi Nagar, Gaziabad District-Gaziabad (U.P.) ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Chetna Vashna .…... Respondents Dated: 3rd March, 2009 Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State Ms. Geeta Parihar, learned counsel for the 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 22.7.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.93/2006, Smt. Chetna Vashna Vs. Chetan Shankar, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of application, i.e., 27.6.2006. 2. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State as well as Ms. Geeta Parihar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available on file. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist before two years as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage father of the respondent no.2 gave dowry above his status but the revisionist was not satisfied with the dowry given by her father. After the marriage, the respondent no.2 came to know that the revisionist is a greedy person and the revisionist and his family members started harassing her for the demand of dowry. When she did not meet out their demands of dowry, then she was also subjected to mental harassment. On 5.4.2006 the revisionist committed Marpeet with the respondent no.2 and due to this reason, it remained impossible for her to live with the revisionist. It was also stated that since 5.4.2006 she is living with her father and the revisionist has not paid any heed towards her. It was also stated that the revisionist is posted as Accountant at B.L.S. Institute of Management, Mohan Bar, Gaziabad, from where he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. On the other hand, it was stated that the respondent no.2 is a sick lady and she is unable to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his objection and has admitted that fact of marriage with the respondent no.2 but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.2. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment 3 and order dated 22.7.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. Ms. Geeta Parihar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has stated that the respondent no.2- Smt. Chetna Vashna has died in an accident and due to this reason, Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he does not want to press the present revision and prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 7. In view of the aforesaid statement given by learned counsel for both the parties, the revision is dismissed as not pressed. Interim order dated 19.09.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 03.03.2009 RG