IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 229 of 2005 Sanjay .…. Revisionist Versus Smt. Ranipal &Ors. ……… Respondents July 15, 2010 Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 122/2003, Smt. Ranipal & Anr. v. Sanjay u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Judge, Family Court has allowed the said application of respondents no. 1 & 2 and awarded maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to respondent no. 1 Smt. Ranipal and Rs. 200/- per month to respondent no. 2 Master Aditya Kumar with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 married with the revisionist on 1.5.2002 as per Hindu rites and respondent no. 2 was born from the said wedlock. After sometime of marriage, the respondent no. 1 was being harassed for dowry and she become ill. Her treatment cost was paid by her father. Thereafter she again went to the house of her in-laws but she was again being harassed and tortured for dowry and the revisionist also tried to burn her. Thereafter she was brought to her maternal house on 7.7.2003 under police protection and since then she is living there. The income of the revisionist was alleged to be Rs. 5500/- per month and she stated that she is unable to maintain herself. On the basis of these facts and circumstances, respondents no. 1 & 2 moved the said maintenance application. 3. The revisionist did not appear before the trial court despite sufficient service and, therefore, after hearing learned Counsel for the applicants/respondents no. 1 & 2 and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court vide the ex parte judgment and order dated 18.5.2004 allowed the aforesaid application of the respondents no. 1 & 2 and directed the revisionist to pay the maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to respondent no. 1 Smt. Ranipal and Rs. 200/- per month to respondent no. 2 Master Aditya Kumar with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.5.2004, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Addl. GA for the State and perused the papers available on record. None appeared for the respondents no. 1 & 2. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.2004 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. The court below has rightly assumed the income of the revisionist as Rs. 3000/- per month. Furthermore, it is not the case of the revisionist that respondents no. 1 & 2 are having some other source of income from which they can maintain themselves. In these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his wife and his son. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 800/- to respondent no. 1 Smt. Ranipal and Rs. 200/- to respondent no. 2 Master Aditya Kumar 2 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 18.5.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar and it requires no interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 18.5.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 122/2003, Smt. Ranipal & Anr. v. Sanjay u/s 125 CrPC is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 08.12.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.7.2010 PRABODH 3