IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.50 OF 2006 Ram Prakash @ Guddu S/o Sri Ramdas ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Seeta 3. Km. Vashnavi .…... Respondents Dated: March 16, 2009 None is present either for the revisionist or for the respondent nos.2 & 3 Sri M.A. Khan, learned 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(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.127/2005, Smt. Seeta & another Vs. Ram Prakash, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.3, in total Rs.1,500/- per month, as maintenance allowance, from the date of application, by the 6th of each month. 2. List has been revised. None is present either on behalf of the revisionist or for respondent nos.2 and 3. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State is present. Perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Seeta moved an application u/s 2 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 29.10.2003 in Dehradun. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter respondent no.3/Km. Vaishnavi was born. In the marriage, sister and brother-in-law of the respondent no.2 gave sufficient dowry, however, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and they started harassing and beating her for the demand of dowry. The revisionist and his family members also threatened her to life. It was also stated that the respondent no.2 gave money to the revisionist two times after taking it from her sister and brother-in-law. After sometime the revisionist started living with her in a rented house at Shanti Vihar, Adhoiwala, Dehradun where also he used to beat her. On 25.5.2005, the revisionist asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her sister and brother-in-law and when she did not meet out his demand of money then the revisionist belabored her and also threatened her for dire consequences. When she felt threat to her life then she came to her sister’s house along with her daughter/respondent no.3 and since then she along with her daughter is living separately from the revisionist. It was also stated that the revisionist is a contractor and his monthly income is Rs.15,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated by the respondent no.2 that she is an illiterate lady and she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was sought by the respondent no.2 as maintenance allowance for herself and her daughter/respondent no.3 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and has admitted the fact of marriage with the respondent no.2 but has denied rest of the averments made in the application. 3 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 7.02.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and her daughter/respondent no.3 and due to cruelty committed by the revisionist for the demand of dowry, she along with her daughter is compelled to live separately from the revisionist. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent nos.2 and 3 for maintenance of her and her daughter against the revisionist. 7. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 7.02.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 04.04.2006 passed by the Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.03.2009 RG