IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 56 of 2006 Smt. Sushma Gupta .…. Revisionist Versus Judge Family Court, Dehradun & Anr. ……… Respondents July 15, 2010 None for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. None for the respondent no. 2. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 622/2002, Smt. Sushma Gupta v. Banke Bihari Gupta u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Judge, Family Court has allowed the said application of wife/respondent no. 2 and awarded her the maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 married the revisionist on 10.2.2000 as per Hindu rites. Soon after her marriage, respondent no. 2 was being harassed and tortured for dowry. On 21.7.2001, respondent no. 2 was sent to her maternal house in pregnant condition. She become ill and very weak and ultimately the pregnancy ended in miscarriage and since then she is living in her maternal house. She stated that she has got no livelihood to maintain herself whereas the revisionist has got monthly income of Rs. 30,000/-. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent no. 2 and directed the revisionist to pay her the maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.9.2003, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. I have perused the papers available on record. None appeared for the revisionist as well as respondent no. 2. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2003 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. Moreover, it is not the case of the revisionist that respondent no. 2 is having some other source of income from which she can maintain herself. In these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his wife. Furthermore, monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and it requires no interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 20.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 622/2002, Smt. Shushma Gupta v. Banke Bihari Gupta u/s 125 CrPC is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 17.10.2003 and 23.12.2003 stand vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.7.2010 PRABODH 2