IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL REVISION No.116 of 2006 Smt. Pooja W/o Yashpal and another … Revisionists Versus Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun & another … Respondents (2) CRIMINAL REVISION No.140 of 2006 Yashpal Singh Bagri … Revisionist Versus Smt. Pooja W/o Yashpal and two others … Respondents Dated: January 6, 2009 CRLR No.116/06 -Sri Piyush Garg, Advocate for the revisionist- Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for State Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Adv.i/b Ms. Meenu Sharma, Adv. for Respondent No.2 CRLR No.140/06 -Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Adv.i/b Ms. Meenu Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist- Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for State Sri Piyush Garg, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1& 2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Both these criminal revisions have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 16.5.2006 passed by Addl. Family Judge, Rishikesh and the parties in both the revisions are also related to each other, hence both the revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. These criminal revisions, preferred by the revisionists 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, are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2006 passed by Addl. Family Judge, Rishikesh in Misc. Case No.72/2004, Smt. Pooja and another Vs. Yashpal Singh, by which the revisionist-Yashpal Singh (CRLR No.140/2006) has been directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to his wife-respondent no.1-Smt. Pooja and Rs.500/- per month to his daughter- respondent no.2-Km. Sakshi by the 10th of each month. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Pooja moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with revisionist Yashpal Singh (CRLR No.140/06) as per Hindu RITES on 10.10.1999. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.2-Smt. Pooja for dowry. On 15.10.1999, when she along with her husband came at her parental house, then she disclosed about the demand of dowry made by the revisionist-Yashpal and his family members. On 17.10.1999, father of respondent no.2-Smt. Pooja came at the house of revisionist-husband and gave Rs.60,000/- in cash to his mother. However, their greed could not be satisfied here and they again started demanding Rs.1.00 lacs on which her father again gave Rs.50,000/- to the mother of revisionist-Yashpal but they again demanded Rs.50,000/- more in dowry. In January, 2001 she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment by the revisionist-husband and his family members for dowry. On 24.2.2002, she was ousted by the revisionist-husband after committing Marpit with her. After that she gave birth to a daughter on 16.10.2002 but even then nobody came even to see her. Thereafter on the persuasion of her parents and family members, she went to the house of revisionist- husband on 3.4.2004 with the condition that no misbehavior would be made towards her. But on 8.4.2004 at 7:00 P.M., she was again ousted by the revisionist-husband, his mother and sister after committing Marpit with her. After that she came at her parental house and since then is residing over there. It was also stated that revisionist-husband is working as a Teacher in Govt. Inter College, Tehri Garhwal from where he gets Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. On the other hand, it was stated that she did not have any source of income and therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. As such, an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by the respondent no.2-wife (CRLR No.140/06) against the revisionist-husband. The revisionist-Yashpal also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Addl. Family Judge, Rishikesh vide judgment and order dated 16.5.2006 directed as above. Feeling aggrieved, CRLR No.140/06 has been preferred by the revisionist-Yashpal Singh Bagri for setting aside the said judgment and order dated 16.5.2006. CRLR No.116/2006 has been preferred by the revisionists for enhancing the amount of maintenance. 4. Revisionist-Smt. Pooja stated in her application that her husband-Yashpal gets Rs.15,000/- per month as salary as he is a Teacher in Govt. Inter College, Tehri Garhwal. Respondent No.2-husband (CRLR No.116/06) also admitted before the court below that his Basic Salary is Rs.6,550/- per month and he gets Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. Now, Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Adv. for Respondent No.2-husband also made a statement before this Court that his client is getting Rs.13,500/- per month as salary after deductions. Thus, in view of this factual position of the case, the amount of maintenance to be paid to the revisionists in CRLR No.116/06 by the respondent no.2-husband (Yashpal) needs to be enhanced. 5. Thus, in view of the above-said discussion, Sri Piyush Garg, Adv. for the revisionists in CRLR No.116/2006 and Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, Adv. i/b Ms. Meenu Sharma, Adv. for Respondent No.2 in CRLR No.116/06, both have submitted at bar that the present revision may be disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2-Yashpal Singh Bagri to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to Revisionist No.1-Smt. Pooja and Rs.1,000/- per month to Revisionist No.2-Km. Sakshi, in total Rs.3,500/- per month for their maintenance from the date of the order passed by court below. 6. In view of the joint consent given by counsel for both the parties, criminal revision No.116/2006 filed by Smt. Pooja-wife on behalf of herself and her daughter, is disposed of with the direction that respondent no.2-Yashpal Singh Bagri (CRLR No.116/06) shall pay Rs.2,500/- per month to Revisionist No.1-Smt. Pooja and Rs.1,000/- per month to Revisionist No.2-Km. Sakshi, in total Rs.3,500/- per month for their maintenance from the date of the order passed by court below. The arrears shall also be paid by the husband- respondent no.2 within six months. 7. Consequently, the criminal revision No.140/2006, preferred by the revisionist-Yashpal stands dismissed. Interim order dated 18.8.2006 passed in CRLR No.140/06 also stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) January 6, 2009 Rajeev Dang