IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.186 of 2008 Ghanshyam .…. Revisionist Versus State & Others …………… Respondents March 4, 2009 Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. None for the respondent no. 2 to 4. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in case no. 70/2005, Smt. Neelam & Ors. v. Ghanshyam under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby learned Family Judge has awarded maintenance amounting to Rs.1000/- per month each to respondent no. 2 to 4 from the date of the impugned order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the revisionist Ghanshyam got married to Smt. Neelam/respondent no. 2 more than 20 ago as per Hindu rituals. They have two daughters and one son from the said wedlock. They were not living harmoniously together. Thereafter revisionist filed a suit for dissolution of marriage claming that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Neelam has deserted him. The said suit was allowed ex parte vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in suit no. 82 of 2007, Ghanshyam v. Smt. Neelam. 3. Smt. Neelam/respondent no. 2 and her children filed a suit under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the revisionist, which was partly allowed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar vide 2 judgment and order dated 13.8.2008, whereby learned Family Judge has awarded maintenance amounting to Rs.1000/- per month each to respondent no. 2 to 4 from the date of the impugned order. Hence, this revision has been filed by the revisionist Ghanshyam. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and perused the record. None appeared for the respondent no. 2 to 4 despite sufficient service. 5. Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned Counsel for the revisionist made a statement at bar that the financial condition of the revisionist is in such a condition that he cannot afford paying Rs.1000/- per month each to respondent no. 2 to 4 i.e. Rs.3000/- per month in total, but the revisionist is ready to pay Rs.800/- per month each to respondent no. 2 to 4 i.e. Rs.2400/- per month in total. 6. In view of the above statement and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to modify the impugned order dated 13.8.2008 to the extent that in place of Rs.1000/- per month, the revisionist shall pay Rs.800/- per month each to respondent no. 2 to 4 from the date of the impugned order of the trial court i.e. 13.8.2008. 7. Ordered accordingly. 8. Criminal revision stands disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 25.9.2008 is hereby vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 04.03.2009 PRABODH