IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.27 of 2008 Vikas Sharma … Revisionist Versus Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun & others … Respondents Dated: April 23, 2009 Sri I.P. Kohli, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State Sri Tarun Takuli, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.269/2006, Smt. Anita Sharma & another Vs. Vikas Sharma, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, in total Rs.2,000/- per month. 2. I have heard Sri I.P. Kohli, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Tarun Takuli, Adv. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and also perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Anita Sharma moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 7.10.2005 as per Hindu RITES and out the said wedlock, she gave birth to a son Master Prem (Respondent No.3) on 4.7.2006. She further stated that the revisionist and his family members used to harass her and used to demand a motorcycle of Rs.65,000/- and even they do not feed her for some days and also used to commit Marpit with her. Even while pregnancy, she was neither given any amount for her maintenance nor any proper medicines were provided to her. On 24.5.2006 with the help of neighbourer, she came at her parental house so as to save her womb. She further stated that the revisionist and his family members were demanding Rs.1.50 lacs in dowry. She further stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her son. Contrary to this, revisionist is posted as Sepoy in Indian Army and his salary is about Rs.14,000/- per month. Besides this he also has some immovable property from where he gets Rs.6,000/- per month as rent. As such an amount of Rs.6,500/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist also filed his written statement before the court below, however thereafter he became absent. Therefore, on 16.1.2007 order for ex parte proceedings was passed against him. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2007 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- each to respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively, in total Rs.2,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 8.2.2007, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has erred by allowing the application of respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. I do not find any force in this argument. The respondent no.2 categorically stated before the court below that she has no source of income. The revisionist himself has stated in his written statement that he gets Rs.7,000/- per month out of which Rs.750/- per month is being deducted towards Army Group Insurance. Even the revisionist also filed his salary certificate in which his total salary was Rs.8,193/- per month and after deductions towards Fund and Army Group Insurance, the revisionist gets Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. As such, the court below rightly awarded Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent nos.2 & 3-wife and son respectively, in total Rs.2,000/- per month. 5. In view of the above-said discussion, it is proved that the respondent nos.2 and 3 are unable to maintain themselves and due to the malt-treatment of revisionist and his family members, she along with her son is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting respondent nos.2 and 3 though he is having sufficient means to maintain them. 6. For the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 8.2.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. In view of the above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 23, 2009 Rajeev Dang