IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.186 OF 2003 Manoj Kumar S/o Dev Datt Sharma R/o New Arjunnagar near Sofia Girls School Saharanpur (U.P.) ……… Revisionist Versus Judge Family Court, Haridwar District Haridwar & two others …... Respondents Dated: November 24, 2008 None is present for the revisionist as well as for respondent no.2 Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State/respondent nos.1 & 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(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.387/2002, Smt. Suman Sharma Vs. Manoj Kumar, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has awarded Rs.1,500/- per month as an interim maintenance in favour of respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 2. List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist as well as for respondent no.2. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State is present. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 got married with the revisionist on 29.4.1999 as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage the father of respondent no.2 gave articles above his status but the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the marriage and after the marriage the 2 revisionist and his family members started committing Marpeet with respondent no.2. It was also stated that out of the said wedlock one son was born however the atrocities continued increasing day after day. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members demanded Rs.1.00 Lac from respondent no.2. On her refusal she was ousted from the house in her wearing clothes and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that during that period the revisionist has not paid any money for maintenance of respondent no.2. It was also stated that she does not have any source of income therefore she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist works in T.K. Steel Works in Ludhiana and he also has a business of readymade garments and from all sources he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month for respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month for son of respondent no.2, in total Rs.3,000/- per month, was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2. Thereafter an ex-parte order was passed against the revisionist for which he moved the application before the court below to set aside the ex-parte order. Learned Judge, Family Court allowed the application of the revisionist to set aside the ex-parte order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, on the cost of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.200/- was paid by the revisionist on the said date to set aside the ex-parte order. After hearing on the interim maintenance application, learned Judge, Family Court has awarded Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of respondent no.2 against the revisionist. Against the aforesaid order dated 29.9.2003, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 3 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and due to the ousting by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is working in T.K. Steel Works in Ludhiana and he also has a business of readymade garments and from all sources he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. The revisionist is intentionally neglecting respondent no.2 for the demand of dowry though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife- respondent no.2. Hence, the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as an interim maintenance to respondent no.2. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said order. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 6.12.2003 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.11.2008 RG