IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.15 of 2005 Smt. Suman Lata Naithani … Revisionist Versus Susheel Chandra Naithani … Respondents Dated: July 16, 2010 None is present for the revisionist, though list has been revised Ms. Seema Sirohi, Adv. for the respondent 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 29.10.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Crl. Case No.121 of 1996, Smt. Suman Lata Naithani Vs. Susheel Chandra Naithani. There is no representation for the revisonist, though list has been revised and power has also been filed by Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, counsel for the revisionist. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that the revisionist moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 26.10.1995. On that application, the court below after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the same thereby directing the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month by the 15th of every month as her maintenance and further Rs.500/- per month as arrears from the date of application i.e. 26.10.95 till the date of order i.e. 29.10.2004. Against the said order, the revisionist/wife has filed this revision for enhancement. The court below while awarding the maintenance has held in its judgment that the application for maintenance was moved on 26.10.1995 and at the relevant point of time, as per Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., there was a maximum ceiling limit of Rs.500/- per month. Hence, the court below rightly held and accordingly, directed that the revisionist is entitled to get Rs.500/- per month from the date of application till the date of order. However, at the time of passing of the order, that provision was repealed. Even the counsel appeared for the revisionist before the court below, though sought maintenance as Rs.5,000/- per month, however the court below in this regard has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist herself has sought only Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance in her application, hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.1,500/- per month was found justified and accordingly awarded. Accordingly the court below passed the impugned order. On a perusal of the impugned order and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the court below. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the court below is affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 16, 2010 Rajeev Dang