IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.220 of 2004 Gopal Singh .…. Revisionist Versus Family Court, Pauri Garhwal & Anr. ……… Respondents July 20, 2010 Manoj Sah, Advocate holding brief of Smt. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate holding brief of Mr. UPS Negi, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Misc. Case No. 29/2002, Smt. Madhuri Devi v. Gopal Singh u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Judge, Family Court has allowed the said application of wife/respondent no. 2 and awarded her the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 married the revisionist as per Hindu rites and two sons born from the said wedlock. Soon after her marriage, respondent no. 2 was being harassed and tortured by the revisionist for dowry. On 11.10.1996, revisionist ousted the respondent no. 2 along with the children from his house and since then respondent no. 2 has been living in her maternal home. Thereafter she claimed maintenance from the revisionist stating that she has got no source of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herself. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent no. 2 and directed the revisionist to pay her the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application as he was working as Senior Clerk in Education Department and he was getting salary of more than Rs. 7000/- per month. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 25.11.2004, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. Moreover, it is not the case of the revisionist that respondent no. 2 is having some other source of income from which she can maintain herself. Furthermore, revisionist at that time was working as Senior Clerk in Education Department and he was getting more than Rs. 7000/- per month as his salary. In these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his wife. Furthermore, monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal and it requires no interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 25.11.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Misc. Case No. 29/2002, Smt. Madhuri Devi v. Gopal Singh u/s 125 CrPC is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 29.12.2004 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance shall be 2 paid to the respondent no. 2 within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.7.2010 PRABODH 3