IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2002 Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri S.R. Gandhi R/o 455 Gall No. 12 Old Bishan Nagar Patiala, Punjab. …………..…Revisionist. Versus Smt. Sashi alias Manjurani W/o Neeraj Kumar D/o Shri Chaman Singah R/o 55, Dehradun Road Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ……….Respondent. Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, counsel for the revisionist. Shri L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Shri J.P. Joshi, counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2002, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in case No. 375 of 2002, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife (respondent) and Rs. 2,000/- per month to his son, as maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist – Neeraj Garg, got married to respondent-Shashi in the year 1993, at Rishikesh. For sometime, they lived happily but thereafter their relations started souring. Firstly, a female child was born out of the wedlock, but she died. Thereafter, a male child was born, who is mentally retarded. The respondent’s case is that she was subjected to cruelty in her husband’s house and had to leave the same in the year 1997-98. Since then she is living in her parental house. It is pleaded by her in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she is unable to maintain herself. She has further pleaded that her husband is businessman, who does dairy business and also property dealing. It is pleaded by her that her husband’s income is Rs. 10,000/- per month. With these pleadings, she claimed Rs. 5,000/-, for herself and her son, as maintenance. 4. The revisionist contested the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the trial court. However, he admitted marriage with the respondent, and also admitted that the retarded son was born out of the wedlock. Rest of the contents, as pleaded, are denied by the revisionist in his written statement, before the trial court. He has further pleaded that the respondent (wife) is of mercurial temperament and she made several attempts to commit suicide. The revisionist has 3 pleaded that since 2002, the retarded son is living with him and to that extent the maintenance, claimed by the respondent has become infructuous. He further pleaded that he has no independent business and he has suffered loss in the business, and the respondent is living in her parental house without sufficient reason, separately from the revisionist, as such, not entitled to the maintenance. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that the monthly income of the revisionist is Rs. 10,000/- per month. It further found that the respondent is unable to maintain herself. It also found that it cannot be said that the respondent was living separately from her husband without sufficient reason. With these findings, the trial court directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to her (and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the son). 6. During the arguments, learned counsel for the parties conceded that son of the parties to the matrimony is now already living with the father (revisionist) since July 2002. As such, there is no question of making payment of maintenance to the wife (respondent) to maintain said son. The only dispute now relates to the direction, made by the trial court to the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife. From the record, it is evidently clear that 4 respondent Sashi alias Manjurani (wife), has no means to maintain herself. On the other hand, admittedly, whether independent or joint, the revisionist runs some business and can maintain his wife. It is not denied by the husband that he was not having earlier dairy business in which he states that he suffered losses. It is also not denied that he had a plot in Karnal (Haryana). As far as the business of running P.C.O., is concerned, he has admitted that said business is being done by him with this brother. In the facts and circumstances, of the case, it cannot be said that trial court has wrongly assessed the income of the husband (revisionist) at Rs. 10,000/- per month, which appears to be a reasonable amount. That being so, this Court further finds that out of Rs. 10,000/- if the trial court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife, it cannot be said that the court has committed any error of law or that of fact in making such direction. Before this Court, learned counsel for the revisionist, submitted that the revisionist is ready to keep his wife with him, and as such, she is not entitled to the maintenance but from the record, it appears that after the respondent made attempts to commit suicide, it was the husband himself, who took her, to her parental house, and left there. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to deny the maintenance to the 5 respondent on the ground that she lived separately without sufficient reason. 7. For the reasons as discussed above, this revision is liable to be dismissed so far as the maintenance directed to be paid by the revisionist to respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, is concerned. Accordingly, revision stands dismissed with the observation that the amount, if any, already paid by the revisionist, shall be adjusted against the dues payable to the wife (respondent). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:01.04.2010 Sweta 6