IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.205 OF 2003 Sanjay Singh S/o Sri Ghanshyam Singh R/o Village-Suawala Police Station-Afjal Garh District Bijnor ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Principal Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar 2. Smt. Sudha Rani W/o Sri Sanjay Singh …... Respondents Dated: December 4, 2008 Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2 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 judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.32/2002, Smt. Sudha Rani Vs. Sanjay Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2 from the date of application. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 7th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State as well as Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available on file. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 got married with the revisionist on 9.5.1998 as per Hindu RITES and in the marriage parents of respondent no.2 gave sufficient dowry. However, the revisionist was not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of respondent no.2. For this reason, he started physically and mentally harassing respondent no.2. It was also stated that on 26.11.1998, the revisionist committed Marpeet with respondent no.2 and she was ousted from the house by the revisionist in her wearing clothes due to demand of dowry. Since then respondent no.2 is living at her parental house. It was also stated that respondent no.2 has not having any source of income in order to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist is having 10 acres of land and he also does milk business. As such, it was stated that the revisionist earns Rs.5,000/- per month from all sources. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and denied most of the allegations made in the application but has admitted respondent no.2 to be his legally wedded wife. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating entire material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 1.10.2003, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 3 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she is unable to maintain herself and due to harassment committed by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house. 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. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, after considering the fact that the revisionist has 10 acres of agricultural land, learned trial court has rightly recorded the earning of the revisionist to be Rs.3,000/- per month and therefore rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent no.2. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 04.12.2008 RG