IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.10 OF 2009 Bhupendra Pandey S/o Ghanshyam Dutt Pandey R/o Village Bojhi No.2, Bhud Maholiya P.S. Khatima, District U.S. Nagar ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Parwati Devi 2. Km. Hema Pandey .…... Respondents Dated: February 19, 2009 Sri B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Sandeep Kothari, 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 22.11.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.192/2006, Smt. Parwati Devi & another Vs. Bhupendra Pandey, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 as maintenance allowance, from the date of application i.e.28.09.2006, by the 7th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents. 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. before the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar on 28.09.2006, stating therein that she got married with the revisionist before 28 years as per Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock, three children (Smt. Jyoti Devi age 23 years, Umesh age 20 years and Km. Hema age 17 years) were born in which Smt. Jyoti Devi has been married, Umesh is unemployed and Km. Hema is studying in Class X. It was also stated that two years’ before moving the application, after committing Marpeet with the respondent no.1, the revisionist ousted her from the house without any reason. Since then, the respondent no.1 is living with her elder sister at Village Damgada, P.S. Khatima, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. It was also stated that the revisionist is having illicit relations with a lady and he has kept that lady in his house and for this reason he misbehave with respondent no.1. It was also stated that the revisionist also ousted respondent no.2 Km. Hema from the house, after beating her, who is now living with her mother/respondent no.1. It was also stated that the respondent no.1 is an illiterate lady and she does not know knitting or sewing work. She is a sick lady and is therefore unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. It was also stated that the financial condition of her (respondent no.1) elder sister is also very poor, who is also unable to maintain her (respondent no.1). On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist is a Government employee and is presently posted as driver in R.E.S. Department, from where he gets Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. It was also stated that after ousting from the house, the revisionist did not pay any heed towards her and her minor daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month for respondent no.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month for 3 respondent no.2 was sought as maintenance allowance against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and admitted the fact of marriage with the respondent no.1 and also the three children born from their wedlock but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 22.11.2008 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. Learned counsel for the revisionist solely argued that he does not want to challenge the order passed by the court below on the ground of quantum. He only prayed that the amount of maintenance as directed by the court below may be directed to be paid by the revisionist from the date of order passed by the court below and not from the date of application. I find force in the argument raised by counsel for the revisionist. After a perusal of the judgment and order passed by the court below, it emerges out that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the judgment by the court below for awarding the amount of maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to award the amount of maintenance from the date of order passed by the court below, i.e., 22.11.2008. 4 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter and due to ousting by the revisionist from the house she is compelled to live with her elder sister at her house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife/respondent no.1. Therefore, the court below has rightly directed the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 as maintenance allowance. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the court below is modified only to the extent that the amount of maintenance shall be paid by the revisionist from the date of order, i.e., 22.11.2008 and not from the date of application. Interim order dated 9.01.2009 passed by this Court is vacated. 9. It is made clear that the amount already paid by the revisionist to the respondents shall not be refunded/ recovered. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.02.2009 RG