IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 71 OF 2008 Mahesh Chandra Kohli S/o Prem Ram, R/o village Rikholi, P.O. Khirkhet, Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora. ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Hansi Devi W/o Sri Mahesh Chandra Kohli, R/o Uchakot Talla Gaon, Patti Uchakot, P.O. Uchakot, Tehsil Betalghat, District Nainital. .……….Respondents Dated: October 15 , 2008 Sri M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Adv. assisted by S.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, 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(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. case no. 105 of 2007 Smt. Hansi Devi vs. Mahesh Chandra Kohli, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the wife-respondent from the date of order i.e. 26.03.2008. 2. Heard Sri M.C. Kandpal, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri S.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent Hansi Devi moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Mahesh Kohli for award of maintenance for herself with the 2 averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent was solemnized on 25.02.2006 in accordance with the Hindu rites. It is stated that according to the status a good dowry including jewelry was given in the marriage. It is stated that the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they started harassing her and she was subjected to cruelty. They showed their resentment for the lesser dowry and told that all the ornaments given in the marriage are artificial and if she would not fetch whole jewelry, Motorcycle/ Scooter/ Refrigerator and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- she will not be treated affectionately. She was threatened that if she would not bring the demanded items they will not keep her alive. She informed to her father in telephone about the cruelty. In this continuous process of harassment and cruelty on 15.08.2006 the revisionist and his family members ousted her from their house by giving her beating. Form that period she is living with her parental home, but the revisionist did not take care of her. On one hand the applicant has no means of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herself, while the revisionist is employed in a factory at Delhi. Besides it he has agricultural land and from all resources he earns a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and he can easily pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month for her maintenance. Refuting the averments made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he refuted the allegations of demand of dowry. It is stated at the time the applicant left his house; she was wearing all the ornaments given as STREEDHAN; the applicant is living at her parental house on her own wishes and he tried to persuade her but for no avail. He preyed that the petition may be dismissed. Thereafter, both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Trial Court vide his judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent and directed the 3 revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the wife-respondent from the date of order i.e. 26.03.2008. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Trial Court has neither taken into consideration the written statement of the revisionist nor the evidence adduced by him. It is stated that the revisionist is ready to keep his wife with him but he apprehends that his wife will create difficulties to him. It is argued that the applicant/respondent is living separately without sufficient causes. Lastly; it is submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive. But from perusal of the order impugned and the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the revisionist did not adduce any evidence in regard to his income. On one hand the applicant has categorically stated that the revisionist is employed in a factory at Delhi; owns agricultural land and from all resources he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month but on the other hand the revisionist has merely stated that he is employed as driver, but he did not categorically refute his agricultural income. On perusal of the order of the trial court it reveals that the revisionist has not paid any heed towards the applicant for her maintenance. Further no evidence is produced in regard to the alternative source of income of the respondent-wife. The trial court has fully considered the petition as also the written objection of the revisionist while passing the order impugned. But keeping in view that the respondent-wife also did not prove the income of the revisionist and the revisionist has other liabilities towards his parents, therefore the amount of maintenance would have been awarded taking into account of the prevailing minimum income and the liabilities of the person concerned. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent-wife is entitled maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month instead of Rs. 2,500/- per 4 month as awarded by the court below. To this extent the impugned order warrants interference at this stage. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance is reduced to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month from Rs. 2,500/-, per month which will be paid from the date of impugned order i.e. from 26.03.2008. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The revisionist is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of impugned order i.e. from 26.03.2008. Interim order dated 22.04.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.10.2008 NCM