IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.189 of 2007 Ash Mohd. S/o Yameen Mohd. … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Dated: February 12, 2009 Sri Mohd. Azim, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for Respondent No.1 Sri B.M. Pinga,l Adv. i/b Sri R.M. Birkhani, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 04.08.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Case No.50/2005, Smt. Shabnam Tara Vs. Ash Mohd., by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 10.3.2005 by the 8th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri Mohd. Azim, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 as well as Sri B.M. Pingal, Adv. i/b Sri R.M. Birkhani, Adv. for respondent no.2. I have also perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of case are that Respondent No.2-Smt. Shabnam moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 10.3.2005 with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 09.05.1998 as per Muslim rituals. Out of the said wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. The father of respondent no.2 spent money in marriage according to his status and also given some cash and domestic items in gift, however the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the gifts and cash given in dowry and due to this reason, he started harassing her physically and mentally and also demanded Rs.1.00 lac in cash. On her refusal, she was also subjected to physical harassment by the revisionist. Ultimately, on 19.10.2004 she came at her parental house along with her father. Thereafter, father of respondent no.2 went to take the children from the revisionist but the revisionist did not allow father of respondent no.2 to take the children. Since then respondent no.2 is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that the revisionist is having about 6 acres of agricultural land in Tehsil Kichha and he also deals in removing mines and minerals, as such he was shown to be earning Rs.12,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist from the date of application. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 04.08.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Sri Mohd. Azim, Adv. for the revisionist and Sri B.M. Pingal, Adv. i/b Sri R.M. Birkhani, Adv. for respondent no.2 both have given the statement at bar that the parties have entered into a compromise outside the Court. They further prayed that the present revision may be disposed of directing the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the order passed by the court below. 5. In view of the joint submission given by counsel for both the parties, the present revision is disposed of with a direction to the revisionist that he shall pay Rs.1,000/- per month (instead of Rs.2,000/- per month as directed by court below) from the date of the order passed by court below i.e. 4.8.2007. Interim order dated 6.9.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. 6. It is made clear that the amount already paid by the revisionist to the respondent no.2 shall not be refunded/ recovered. (Dharam Veer, J.) February 12, 2009 Rajeev Dang