IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.167 OF 2007 Ajay Pal … Revisionist Versus Smt. Pooja Pal & others … Respondents Dated: August 11, 2010 Sri MK Goyal, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State 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 22.06.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.301/2005, Smt. Pooja Pal & another Vs. Ajay Pal. Perused the entire material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that revisionist was married with respondent no.1 on 28.11.2002 and soon after the marriage she came to know that the revisionist was having illicit relations with his sister in law (BHABHI) and when she resisted to it, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. On 18.9.2003 out of the said wedlock, a boy was born out. The revisionist demanded Rs.50,000/- from the respondent no.1 to get from her parental house and when she shown inability, the revisionist and his family members committed Marpit with her. Since 17.9.2005 she is residing at her parental house along with her son and unable to maintain herself. The revisionist works as a Tailor and earns Rs.20000/- per month and as such Rs.5000/- per month was sought as maintenance. On hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the court below vide judgment and order dated 22.06.2007 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2000/- per month (Rs.1000/- for herself and Rs.500/- each for two children). Hence this revision. 2 So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, the court below held that the revisionist works as a Tailor and looking to the Tailoring charges, his monthly income was determined as Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6000/- per month. The Court below also rightly held that the revisionist as such can easily pay Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below awarded Rs.2000/- per month towards the maintenance of respondent/wife and her two children. 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 22.06.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 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. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 11, 2010 Rajeev Dang