IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.194 of 2007 Sahnajar .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ……… Respondents July 20, 2010 Mr. SK Shandliya, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 & 3. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No. 20/2006, Smt. Rashida & Anr. v. Sahnajar u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Addl. Family Judge has allowed the said application of wife/respondent no. 2 and awarded her the maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month and Rs. 500/- per month to their minor son i.e. the respondent no. 3 with effect from the date order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 married the revisionist and three children born from the said wedlock. Soon after her marriage, respondent no. 2 was being harassed and tortured by the revisionist for dowry. Ultimately the revisionist ousted the respondent no. 2 along with her minor son (respondent no. 3) from his house and since then they are living in maternal home. But the other two children are living with the revisionist. Thereafter she claimed maintenance from the revisionist stating that she has got no source of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herself. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Addl. Family Judge allowed the aforesaid maintenance application and directed the revisionist to pay her the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month i.e. Rs. 1000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 500/- per month to respondent no. 3 with effect from the date of order. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.8.2007, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2007 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. Moreover, it is not the case of the revisionist that respondent no. 2 is having some other source of income from which she can maintain herself and her minor son. Furthermore, it is an admitted case of the revisionist that he was doing the labour work and had also worked as Salesman in the past and as such the court bellow has rightly held that the revisionist being a healthy young man can maintain her wife by even doing the labour work. Besides, the revisionist is also getting agricultural income. In these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his wife and minor son. Furthermore, monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee and it requires no interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No. 20/2006, Smt. Smt. Rashida & Anr. v. Sahnajar u/s 125 CrPC is hereby 2 affirmed. Interim order dated 13.9.2007 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance shall be paid to the respondent no. 2 within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.7.2010 PRABODH 3