IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.153 OF 2003 Gulfam S/o Sri Wahid R/o Village Peerpura P.S. Manglaur District-Haridwar ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar 2. Smt. Farzana W/o Sri Gulfam 3. Km. Gulfasa (minor) 4. Tarmeen Alam (minor) 5. Km. Lakshan Jahan (minor) …... Respondents Dated: November 25, 2008 None is present for the revisionist as well as for the respondents Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.1 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 26.9.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.20/2002, Smt. Farzana and others Vs. Gulfam, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.600/- per month to Respondent No.2 and Rs.300/- per month each to Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, in total Rs.1,500/- per month, as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 20.12.2001. It was also directed that the back amount of maintenance shall be paid by the revisionist by paying additional monthly installment of Rs.500/-. The additional installment of Rs.500/- per month was directed to be paid along with 2 the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.1,500/- per month, by the 10th of each month. 2. List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist as well as for the respondents. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State is present. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Farzana moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist before 6 years’ and in the marriage the father of respondent no.2 gave sufficient dowry to the revisionist. It was also stated that soon after the marriage the revisionist and his family members started demanding Rs.1.00 Lac in cash and one motorcycle. On her refusal, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the revisionist and his family members. On 2.9.2001 the revisionist and his family members committed Marpeet with respondent no.2 and she was ousted from the house for the demand of dowry. Since then she is residing at her parental house along with her children. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members kept entire Stridhan of respondent no.2. It was also stated that out of the said wedlock respondent no.3-Gulfasa, respondent no.4-Tarmeen Alam and respondent no.5-Lakshan Jahan were born, who are living with respondent no.2. It was also stated that respondent no.2 does not know any work. It was also stated that the parents of respondent no.2 are poor and are unable to maintain respondent no.2 and her children. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist does agriculture work and is also having a dairy. As such it was stated that the revisionist earns Rs.8,000/- per month from all sources. With all these averments, an 3 amount of Rs.1,000/- per month for respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month each for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 were sought as maintenance against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and denied most of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating entire material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 26.9.2003 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.9.2003, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she is unable to maintain herself and due to harassment committed by the revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife/respondent. Therefore, the court below has rightly directed the amount of maintenance against the revisionist to the tune of Rs.600/- per month to Respondent No.2 and Rs.300/- per month each to Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 (in total Rs.1,500/- per month), as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 20.12.2001. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or 4 incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.9.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 25.11.2008 RG