IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.143 OF 2007 Yunus Kureshi ……… Revisionist Versus Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar and seven others ..…... Respondents Dated: August 9, 2010 Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for respondent no.1 None for respondent nos.2 to 8 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(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.6.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case No.183/2004, Smt. Salma and others v. Yunus Kureshi, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent no.2, Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 and 4, Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 (in total Rs.11,000/- per month) as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 9.9.2004. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by 7th of each of month. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Salma moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar against the revisionist stating therein that she got married to the revisionist in February 1994 as per Muslim customs. Respondent nos.3 to 8 were born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that after the marriage the revisionist started taunting her for bringing less dowry and she was also subjected to mental and physical harassment for the demand of Rs.30,000/- cash. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand of money, the revisionist threatened her and her children (respondent nos.3 to 8) to life and also threatened her not to live with him. It is further alleged that the revisionist is living with another lady. It is stated that she is having no source of income and she does not know any work so as to maintain herself and her children. On the other hand, it is stated that the revisionist does business of animals and also does business of shoes in partnership. Besides this, he is also having a meat shop and, from all these sources, the revisionist is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. With these averments, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month for herself and Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 to 8 was sought as maintenance amount by respondent no.2. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He admitted his marriage with respondent no.2 and also the children (respondent nos.3 to 8) born out of the wedlock but denied rest of the averments made in the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 11.6.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. So far as the maintenance amount of respondent nos.2 to 8 is concerned, respondent no.2 has stated that the revisionist is earning Rs.20,000/- per month from different sources. However, this fact has been denied by the revisionist. But, in this regard, neither the revisionist nor the respondent no.2 has filed any evidence so as to show the actual income of the revisionist. Further, the respondent no.2 has herself admitted before the court below that she is living in another house of the revisionist. Hence, in the present scenario, when 2 it is admitted that the respondent no.2 is living in another house of the revisionist, I am of the view that the maintenance amount awarded to respondent nos.2 to 8 is on higher side. As such, after considering these facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent no.2/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each for her children (respondent nos.3 to 8) i.e. Rs.5,000 and in total Rs.8,000/- per month would be awarded as maintenance, from the date of application. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 1.6.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, is modified to the extent that the revisionist will pay maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent no.2/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 to 8 (in total Rs.8,000/- per month), from the date of application. Interim order dated 11.7.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. However, it is made clear that the amount already paid by the revisionist shall not be refunded. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 9, 2010 RG 3