HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 38 of 2004 Dharam Pal -----Applicant/ Revisionist. Versus Judge Family Court and 2 others. ------- Respondents Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Mamta Bisht, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Dated: 16th 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.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case no. 798/2002 Smt. Maya Devi vs. Dharampal, whereby the learned Judge Family Court directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to his wife as interim maintenance. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that the respondent no.2 filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court below with the averments that her marriage was solemnized on 25.07.1996 with the revisionist according to the Hindu rituals. One daughter was born out of the wedlock. After the marriage the revisionist had started abusing with her, often she was beaten and she was subjected to cruelty by the revisionist on account of which she was suffering continuous mental agony. On 15.08.2002 she was ousted by the revisionist alongwith her daughter. However the revisionist did not pay any heed towards her. She has no source of income for her livelihood. On the other hand the revisionist is a contractor. Besides it he did agriculture and earns a sum of Rs. 10-15 thousands per month. She prayed that she may be given a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month for herself and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month for her daughter as maintenance from the revisionist. The revisionist/husband denying the allegations made by the respondent no.2 has filed his objection stating therein that the applicant according to her own wishes had left his house. His endeavour to take her back got all in vain. The applicant is self dependent. His income has been shown in exaggeration. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned Judge Family Court on 22.12.2003 directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to his wife as interim maintenance from 27.08.2003. The arrears in lieu thereof be paid in four equal installments. Aggrieved with this order the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 3. I have heard Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Smt. Mamta Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present for respondent no. 2/wife. 4. A bare perusal of the record shows that despite service of notice, the revisionist did not turn up before the Court below therefore the Court below vide order dated 30.09.2003 proceeded ex-parte against the revisionist. On 18.10.2003, the Court below directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his daughter as interim maintenance. The revisionist filed application seeking recall of the order dated 18.10.2003 and the Court below while recalling the ex- parte order has passed the order impugned modifying his earlier order dated 18.10.2002. 5. Otherwise also on perusal of the record and after going through the order passed by the Judge Family Court, Dehradun, 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. Interim order dated 16.03.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: