HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 101 of 2007 Neeraj Verma S/o Sri Padam Sen Verma, R/o House no. 429/2, Purani Tehsil Rajputana, Roorkee, District Haridwar, at present- Lecturer (Physics), G.I.C.-Bangiyal , Tehri Garhwal. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. Smt. Monika Verma W/o Sri Neeraj Verma, D/o Sri S.L. Verma, House no. 596, Bankhandi, Hiralal Road, Rishikesh, Dehradun, 2. Master Shubham Verma @ Sidharth (Minor), Aged about 5½ years through his natural guardian, Mother Smt. Monika Verma (respt. No.1). 3. State of Uttarakhand. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist, Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State/respondent no.3. Dated: July 31, 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 order dated 09.05.2007 passed by the Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Case no. 10 of 2007 Smt. Monika Verma and another vs. Sri Neeraj Verma by which the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent no.1-wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no.2-son as interim maintenance from 23.02.2007. 2. None is present on behalf of the revisionist. I have heard Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no.3 and perused the record as also the order impugned. 3. From perusal of the record is reveals that the respondent no.1-wife filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband- revisionist for awarding maintenance to her. It is stated in the petition that marriage in between her and the revisionist Neeraj 2 Verma was solemnized on 20th April 2000 according to the Hindu rituals. Master Shubhan was born out of the wedlock on 4th September 2001. Her in-laws’ family is a joint family consisting of her husband, Mother-in-law, Father-in-law and one brother-in-law DEVER. At the time of marriage it was told that the revisionist is Master of Business Administration and his salary is Rs. 40,000/- per month but after the marriage all was found fabricated and it revealed that he was simply a teacher in the monthly pay of Rs. 6,000/-. In the marriage, according to the demand of revisionist, a cash amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- were give to the revisionist as dowry for purchase of some precious items, such as Television, Washing Machine, Refrigerator, Clothes, Cutlery items, Household utensils, Double Bed, Furniture, Sofa Set, Dressing Table, etc. Besides it various ornaments made of gold and silver were also given as dowry. It is alleged that a huge sum of Rs. 7,90,000/- was expended in the marriage. After the marriage the revisionist and his family members started neglecting to her. All her cash amount and the gifted items, given in dowry, were captured by her in-laws’ and she was being taunted for less dowry. She was asked to bring further cash amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for fulfillment of their demand of dowry but her parents were unable to fulfill their demands, therefore the revisionist and her family members started beating to her, abused her, tortured her mentally and physically and she was subjected to cruelty. Again a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was expended in purchase of various items and given to the opposite party in fulfillment of their demand of dowry. The phone facility of the home was kept locked and her jewelry was kept in the Bank locker. The respondent-wife was not allowed to wear her jewelry, even on any reasonable occasion or ceremony. During her pregnancy she was beaten and subjected to mental and physical cruelty. After the birth of the child, no care was taken towards her and her child. She was being treated as maidservant by the opposite party. On 25.12.2002 the revisionist ousted her alongwith her 3 child in their wearing clothes. Till that date she is residing with her parental house and from that day the revisionist did not pay any heed towards her or her child and no maintenance was given to them. On putting demand for maintenance, she was threatened for dire consequence. The respondent-wife has no means of livelihood while the revisionist is Lecturer in Intermediate College and his salary is Rs. 18,000/- per month. Besides it he does tuition; earns money from building property and from all resources he earns Rs. 40,000/- per month. The respondent-wife prayed that she may be awarded Rs. 14,000/- per month as maintenance from the revisionist as she has to take house in rental basis; has to educate her child and has to expend money in buying essential commodities. Denying the averments made in the petition, the revisionist-husband filed his written statement. Although, he conceded the marriage in between the parties, but he refuted the allegations of dowry and cruelty allegedly assigned on his part. It is stated that the respondent-wife is living with her parental house on her own wishes. He is ready to keep her with him. His income has been shown in exaggeration. It is conceded that he is Lecturer in G.I.G. It is further stated that her wife is educated one and by doing tuition, she is earning money. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court vide order dated 09.05.2007 directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent no.1-wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no.2-son as interim maintenance from 23.02.2007. Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. The impugned order has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that the respondent no.1-wife had herself left her matrimonial house and the revisionist intends to keep her wife with him; he had not given proper opportunity of hearing. But from perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that there are reasonable grounds to the respondent no.1-wife to live 4 separately. The revisionist did not file objection against the interim maintenance. It is not disputed that the respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The Court below while awarding maintenance has also considered the financial condition of the parties. By not paying any heed towards the respondents-wife & child 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 and she is self dependent. It is also observed that the respondent no.2 is to be educated, therefore her mother has to manage for educating her child. The respondent is posted as Lecturer in an Intermediate College. In these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent no.1-wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no.2-son as interim maintenance from 23.02.2007, which in my opinion is reasonable and the order impugned does not warrant any interference at this stage. 5. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 09.05.2007 passed by the Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 7. The interim order dated 25.05.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 31.07.2008 NCM: