IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.199 OF 2005 Sohan Singh @ Mangal Singh @ Mangat Singh … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents Dated: August 11, 2010 None for the revisionist though list has been revised Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State Mr. HM Bhatia, Adv. for 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, US Nagar in Crl. Misc. Appln. No.139/2004, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Vs. Sohan Singh @ Mangal Singh @ Mangat Singh. Perused the entire material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that revisionist was married with respondent no.2 on 09.12.1996 as per Sikh rituals and out of said wedlock, two daughters were born out. The revisionist at the instance of her mother used to commit physical and mental cruelty upon the respondent/ wife and also refused to bear the educational expenses for the children. Several times she was ousted by the revisionist from the house and due to these physical and mental cruelties, her physical situation became so worse that she was brought at Khatima Hospital where the doctors advised Rs.40,000/- for her treatment, on hearing which the revisionist left her at her parental house. Her father used to get the respondent/wife medically examined but the revisionist did not pay anything. The respondent no.2 stated unable to maintain herself while the revisionist is a Doctor and also gets handsome income from the agricultural work and as such Rs.5000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist also filed his written statement and denied the contents of the application. On hearing counsel for 2 the parties and appreciating the material on record, the court below vide judgment and order dated 17.09.2005 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4000/- per month (Rs.2000/- for herself and Rs.1000/- each for her two daughters till the attain majority). The arrears were also directed to be paid by paying additional installment of Rs.4000/-. Hence this revision. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, the respondent- wife stated that the revisionist is having his own clinic and also having 6 acres of land from where he earns Rs.3000-3500/- per annum. The revisionist stated that he is learning work of Compounder but he did not disclose his income and the court below came to the conclusion that the revisionist is thus, trying to hide his income. The court below after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly the social and family status of both the families, came to the conclusion that the respondent/wife is entitled for maintenance and accordingly awarded Rs.2000/- for maintenance of wife and Rs.1000/- each for her two daughters, in total Rs.4000/- per month. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the court below rightly awarded the maintenance amount against the revisionist and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 17.09.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, US Nagar. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 7.10.2005 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 11, 2010 Rajeev Dang