HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 59 of 2005 Yogendra Singh S/o Mange Ram, R/o village Dhamat, P.S. Purkaji, District Muzaffarnagar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.Smt. Sunita W/o Sri Yogendra Singh D/o Sri Chatar Singh, R/o village Maheshwari P.S. Laksar, Distt, Haridwar, 2.Km. Shivani (minor) D/o Sri Yogendra Singh, 3. Shivam (minor) S/o Yogendra Singh, Both respt. 2 & 3 through her natural guardian and Mother Smt. Sunita-respt. No.1, 4.State of Uttarakhand, through Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist or for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 4. Dated: August 7, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case no. 361/02 Smt. Sunita and others vs. Yogendra Singh, by which the petition filed by the respondent no.1-wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance out of which Rs. 1,000/- per month was directed to be paid to the respondent-wife and Rs. 500/- per month each to the children, namely, Km. Shivani and Master Shivam. It is further directed that prior to the date of order the interim maintenance shall be paid @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. 2. List has been revised, but none has responded either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record as well as the order impugned. 2 3. From perusal of the record is reveals that the respondent no.1 Smt. Sunita moved a petition before the Trial Court against the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for the maintenance of herself, and for the children, namely, Km. Shivani-aged 5 years’ and Master Shivam-aged 4 years’. It is alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist 8 years’ before, in accordance with the Hindu rites. And in the marriage dowry was given according to their status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they started harassing her mentally and physically and she was subjected to cruelty. On 30.09.2002 the revisionist, his father, his mother and his maternal grandfather demanded Rs. 20,000/- and a motorcycle as dowry and by giving beating to her she was left out at her parental house. It is averted that she has no sources of livelihood and she is maintaining herself and both the children in poverty. The revisionist owns 45 bighas of agricultural land and earns Rs. 2 lacs per year besides it he sells milk and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. She prayed that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 1,500/- per month for each of the children may be awarded as maintenance from the revisionist. The revisionist, on the other hand, filed his objection and he refuted the averments in regard to the harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry. It is averted that he went to bring his wife and children, but they were not sent with him. A case u/s 498-A I.P.C. was lodged against him and he remained in jail for a period of one month. It is alleged that the respondent-wife is reluctant to come with her husband. Thus, the opposite party is not entitled for any maintenance. Thereafter the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Trial Court vide his order dated 07.03.2005 allowed the petition filed by the respondent no.1-wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance out of which a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month was directed to be paid to the respondent-wife and a sum of Rs. 500/- per month each to Km. 3 Shivani and Master Shivam. It is further directed that prior to the date of the order the interim maintenance shall be paid @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Court below it reveals that the Court below has reached to the conclusion that primarily the interim relief application was allowed to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month and in a revision preferred before the High Court the amount of interim maintenance was fixed to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-per month which the revisionist was paying to his wife. After this revision was filed, this Court stayed operation of the impugned order subject to the condition that the revisionist shall continue to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month to the opposite party. Marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.1 and birth of two children is undisputed. It is also established that relation in between the husband and wife are strained on account of initiation of the criminal proceeding and the respondent-wife has reasonable cause to live separate. The respondent-wife is living separately alongwith the children from 3-4 years’ and she has no means to survive. The Trial Court also considered the financial condition of the parties. On one hand the respondent- wife has no means of livelihood to maintain herself and the children, while on the other hand the revisionist has admitted that he owns agricultural land, his witness has also stated that the revisionist has agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 3,000-4,000 in a season. Thus, by not paying any heed towards the respondent-wife and the children and by avoiding maintenance to them, itself proves the negligent conduct on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist could not show that the respondent-wife has alternative source of income. Therefore, Trial Court has not committed any manifest error of law in awarding the maintenance as above. In my opinion, the order 4 impugned is reasonable and does not warrant any interference at this stage. 5. Otherwise also on a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 07.03.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 31.03.2005 passed by this Court stand vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.08.2008 NCM: