IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.220 OF 2007 Narayan Singh … Revisionist Versus Family Judge Rishikesh & others … Respondents Dated: August 11, 2010 Mr. Piyush Garg, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State Mr. Yogesh Pacholiya, Adv. for respondent nos.2 & 3 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Crl. Case No.205/2004, Smt. Premlata Vs. Narain Singh. Perused the entire material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that revisionist was married with respondent no.2 on 17.05.1992 and out of said wedlock, a boy was born out. Soon after the marriage the revisionist started maltreating her and also used to commit physical and mental cruelty upon her. On 15.4.2004 the revisionist beaten her by which she received injuries and remained admitted in the Rishikesh hospital. ON 15.4.2004 the revisionist quarreled with the respondent-wife and ousted her along with her son in worn clothes. She is having no source of income while the revisionist is retired from IDPL Rishikesh from where he received Rs.15.00 lacs in cash and the total income of revisionist was shown as Rs.35000/- per month and as such Rs.15,000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist appeared before the court below, filed his written statement but thereafter he started seeking adjournments on 17.8.2006, 17.9.2006, 1.9.2006, 28.10.2006, 20.12.2006 and 29.1.2007 and thereafter he cross examined the respondent-wife but thereafter he started again seeking adjournments and ultimately on 17.8.2007, his right of evidence was closed. On hearing counsel for the 2 parties and appreciating the material on record, the court below vide judgment and order dated 14.09.2007 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.8000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Hence this revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has awarded excessive amount of maintenance. I find some force in this argument. The revisionist has produced the certificate issued by Principal Kalawati Vidhya Mandir, Rishikesh as Annexure 8 in which it is stated that the monthly fee of his son Rahul is being paid by the revisionist. It is also pertinent to mention here that the son Rahul is residing with the revisionist and all expenses of education and upbringing of the son Rahul is borne by the revisionist. The revisionist is also having a Flour Mill from where he must be deriving some income. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the requirement of the respondent-wife and the fact that the son Rahul is residing with the revisionist, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if Rs.5000/- per month is awarded. For the reasons as aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed. Judgment and order passed by the trial court is modified to the extent only that the respondent-wife shall be entitled to get Rs.5000/- per month instead of Rs.8000/- per month. Interim order dated 17.11.2007 accordingly stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 11, 2010 Rajeev Dang