IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.56 OF 2004 Kundan Singh S/o Late Shri Madan Singh Bisht R/o Dhanachuli, Tehsil-Dhari District-Nainital ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Jaya Bisht & another …... Respondents Dated: November 24, 2008 None is present for the revisionist. Sri M.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 9.4.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.49/2003, Smt. Jaya Bisht & another Vs. Kundan Singh Bisht, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.1,250/- per month to respondent no.2, through his mother and natural guardian-respondent no.1 till the respondent no.2 completes the age of 18 years. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of filing the application i.e. 7.5.2003. It was also directed that the arrears shall be paid by the revisionist within 30 days. 2. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Sri M.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire material available on file. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 got married with the revisionist on 12.5.1997 at Haldwani as per Hindu RITES. After next day of the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started taunting the respondent no.1 for the demand of Scooter, T.V. and Rs.1.00 Lac as dowry. Out of the said wedlock, one son was born on 31.3.1998 at Getwell Nursing Home, Hiranagar, Haldwani. It was also stated that on 10.11.1998, the revisionist and his aunt (BUA) beaten respondent no.1 mercilessly and she was left at her parental house along with her son in injured condition. On 9.1.1999, the father of respondent no.1 after persuading her, took her in-laws house with Rs.10,000/- cash. On 13.8.1999, again the respondent no.1 was beaten by the revisionist and was left at Haldwani in injured condition. It was also stated that on 27.7.2000 she was again sent with the revisionist by her parents by paying Rs.10,000/- but the revisionist did not allow respondent nos.1 and 2 to enter into his house and committed Marpeet with respondent no.1 on the road and thereafter the revisionist left her at Haldwani Roadways Bus Station on 28.7.2000. The respondent no.1 medically examined herself in Haldwani Government Hospital and then lodged the report of the said incident at Police Station, Haldwani. It was also stated that the case was filed by respondent no.1 against the revisionist u/Ss 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. Later on both the parties arrived at in compromise but after that the revisionist again started demanding dowry from respondent no.1. It was also stated that on 21.4.2003 she was beaten by the revisionist and was ousted from the house along with her son. It was also stated that she is unemployed and is unable to maintain herself and her son/respondent no.2. It was also stated that the financial condition of her parents 3 is also not good. On the other hand, the revisionist is working as Government Clerk in Ramgarh, District- Nainital from where he earns Rs.8,000/- per month as salary. It was also averted that the revisionist also has 100 Nali land on which he has constructed building and from where he is getting rent. It was also stated that the revisionist also has a garden from where he is earning Rs.3,000-4,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for respondent no.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month for respondent no.2 (son) was sought as maintenance by respondent no.1 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and admitted respondent no.1 to be his legally wedded wife and also admitted a son born from their wedlock but denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 9.4.2004, directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9.4.2004, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.1 was ousted from the house number of times by the revisionist by causing injuries to her for the demand of dowry. Due to the ousting by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house and she has got no source of income and therefore is unable to maintain herself and her son. On the 4 other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting respondent no.1 for the demand of dowry though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife-respondent no.1. Therefore, the court below came to the conclusion that the cruelty was committed with respondent no.1 by the revisionist and his family members. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the court below after considering the fact that the revisionist is posted as Clerk in Government Department and he is also having agricultural land, has rightly calculated the income of the revisionist to be Rs.9,000/- per month from all sources and therefore, the court below rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.1-wife and Rs.1,250/- per month to respondent no.2- son, in total Rs.2,750/- per month as maintenance allowance, from the date of application i.e. 7.5.2003. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 9.4.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 13.8.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.11.2008 RG