IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.134 of 2005 Mahesh Chandra Pathak … Revisionist Versus Smt. Vimla Pathak and another … Respondents Dated: January 7, 2009 Sri Vishal Singh, Adv. i/b Sri R.S. Sammal, Adv. for the revisionist Sri K.C. Tewari, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for State/Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 23.06.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Crl. Case No.112/2003, Smt. Vimla Pathak Vs. Mahesh Chandra Pathak, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.1-Smt. Vimla Pathak as maintenance w.e.f. 1.6.2005. 2. I have heard Sri Vishal Singh, Advocate i/b Sri R.S. Sammal, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri K.C. Tewari, Adv. for Respondent No.1 and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of case are that Respondent No.1-Smt. Vimla Pathak moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 12.03.2000 as per Hindu RITES. After the marriage, she went to the revisionist’s house after her departure from her father’s house. For two times after the marriage, she came at her parental house and on both of the occasions, she complained her parents that the revisionist and his family members were harassing her by demanding dowry. In the month of June, 2000, she also complained to her father by writing three letters about the demand of dowry. It was also stated that after that her mother-in-law also went to her parental house where she threatened her parents to keep their daughter with them and her mother in law also demanded Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1.00 lacs and due to this reason, it remained impossible for her to reside at her in-laws house. She also stated that the revisionist had also solemnized another marriage at Bazpur in the past and that girl was also ousted after three months of marriage by the revisionist and his family members by committing Marpit with her and thereafter she took divorce. Since 2.7.2000, she is residing at her parental house and her in-laws ousted her from their house in her wearing clothes. It was further stated that the revisionist runs a Tempo from where he earns Rs.500/- per day and his per month income is about Rs.10,000/-. On the other hand, she is a poor daughter of her father and is totally unable to maintain herself. The revisionist also appeared before the court below filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide judgment and order dated 23.06.2005 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri Vishal Singh, Advocate i/b Sri R.S. Sammal, Adv. for the revisionist argued that the court below has erred in awarding excessive amount of maintenance to the respondents against the revisionist. I do not find any force in this argument. The respondent no.1-Smt. Vimla Pathak leveled a charge against the revisionist and his family members that they have ousted her from their house due to demand of dowry. She also stated that her husband (Revisionist) was demanding Rs.50,000/- for getting a new Tempo and due to this reason, she has got sufficient reason to live separate from the revisionist. The revisionist also stated in his written statement that in the year 2002, he was earning Rs.70-80 per day. The respondent no.1-wife stated in her application that the revisionist earns Rs.10,000/- per month, however no reliable evidence was produced in support of that averment before the court below. The court below also rightly recorded finding that the revisionist runs an old Tempo and even the respondent no.1 herself admitted that the revisionist does not run Tempo on daily basis and the day on which he runs Tempo, he earns Rs.400-500 on that day. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below rightly came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the revisionist cannot be less than Rs.3,500/- per month and accordingly the court below rightly awarded Rs.1,500/- as maintenance amount to be given to the respondent no.1 against the revisionist w.e.f. 01.06.2005. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.1 is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting by revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. 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 no.1 for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 06.07.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) January 7, 2009 Rajeev Dang