HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 163 of 2004 Charan Singh S/o Dola Ram. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and 3 others. ------- Respondents Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist, None for the private respondents. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. Dated: 29th April 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the order dated 05.08.2004 passed by the Judge, Family court, Haridwar in case no. 5 of 2004 ‘Minor Pooja vs. Charan Singh’, whereby the learned Judge Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant minors, namely Pooja and Himanshu as interim maintenance from the filing of the application i.e. from 18.06.2004. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that the respondent nos. 3 & 4, namely, Pooja and Himanshu, who are minors, have filed a petition no. 5 of 2004 before the Trial Court against his father-revisionist with the averments that marriage of their mother late Smt. Aruna was solemnized with the revisionist about 14 years’ before according to the Hindu rituals. After the marriage; Smt. Aruna was subjected to cruelty by the revisionist for fulfilling his demand of dowry and in the continuous process of cruelty and harassment, on 14.05.2001 the revisionist alongwith his family members gave beating to Smt. Aruna who succumbed to her injuries. The accused persons have cremated the dead body without any information. In this regard a case crime no. 47 of 2001 u/s 302,201 I.P.C. Police Station Jhabrera was registered against the revisionist and his family members. The petitioners are living separately at Jwalapur with their maternal grandfather. The revisionist did not care to them and did not pay any heed towards them. They have apprehension that they would be killed, in case they would go to the revisionist. The revisionist is serving in the Military and earns salary to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Besides it he has agricultural land and he runs a flour mill. For all accounts he earns Rs. 19,000/- per month. The petitioner Pooja, who is aged about 11½ years is studying in class VII and the petitioner Himanshu who is aged about 7½ years’ is studying in class II. In this regard they have demanded Rs. 4,000/- each for their study and their maintenance. The revisionist has filed his written statement/objection and refuting the averments made by the petitioners he conceded the marriage solemnized in between him and Smt. Aruna. It is also accepted that earlier he was serving in the Army, but at present he is terminated from his service. It is also admitted that he was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case. It is submitted that he desires to give adequate education to his children. The learned Judge Family Court vide order dated 05.08.2004 while disposing of the interim maintenance application filed by the petitioners and its objection filed by the revisionist, has allowed the interim maintenance application on the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the filing of the application i.e. since dated 18.06.2004. Aggrieved with this order the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 3. I have heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. None is present for the petitioners/private respondents. 4. During the course of arguments Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated, at bar, that the case has finally been decided by the Trial Court and now the revision has rendered infructuous. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Roorkee dated 05.08.2004, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being infructuous. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: