1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 82 Of 2010 Shahid Hussain S/O Shri Gulam Rasool, R/O Near Gosia Maszid, Goolarghatti, Ramnagar, P.S Ramnagar, District Nainital ………………..Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Meena Rani D/O Shri Sabir Khan R/O Goolarghatti, behind Gosia Maszid Ramnagar, P.S Ramnagar, Distt Nainital 2. Master Sahib Hussain S/O Shri Shahid Hussain through his mother and natural guardian Smt Meena Rani, D/O Shri Sabir Khan R/O behind Gosia Maszid, Goolarghatti Ramnagar, P.S Ramnagar, Distt Nainital ……………..Respondents Shri Gopal Krishan, Advocate present for the revisionist Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard (2) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th of March 2010, passed by Judge Family Court Nainital, in Misc. Criminal application no 60 of 2008, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay 2 maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month to his minor son Sahib Hussain under section 125 of Cr.P.C. The trial court by said order has declined maintenance to the wife of the revisionist. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist Shahid Hussain got married to respondent no.1 Meena Rani in the year 1998 according to Muslim rites, and Rs. 25000/- was agreed as an amount of Mehar payable by the husband (revisionist) to his wife. A son (Sahib Hussain) was born out of the wedlock. However the relations between the parties to matrimony got soured and, since 2008, they started living separately. The minor son lives with the mother. Respondent no.1 Meena Rani (wife) and her son (Sahib Hussain) moved an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C, before the Judge Family Court, Nainital, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per month. The revisionist contested said petition and pleaded that respondent no.1 Meena Rani has already being divorced by the revisionist. As to the son, it was pleaded by the revisionist before the trial court that the proceedings under section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act are already pending for his custody. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that though the wife is not entitled to the maintenance, but considering the economic status of the parties, the trial court directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month from the date of application, to his son Sahib Hussain (present respondent no.2) 3 (4) This court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month to the son. (5) Learned counsel for the revisionist pleaded that the amount is excessive keeping in mind the income of the revisionist. From the perusal of the order challenged before this court it appears that the revisionist is a contractor of electric fittings. Considering the status of the parties this court is of the view that there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. (6) Therefore, this revision is dismissed summarily with the direction that the revisionist is allowed to pay arrears of maintenance payable to his son in the three quarterly installments from today and the future maintenance shall be paid by 15th of every next month till the minor son attains age of majority. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.06.05.2010 N.P