IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.152 of 2006 Sri Om Prakash … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another … Respondents Dated: October 17, 2008 Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 None appears 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 12.09.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Gahrwal in Misc. Crl. Case No.18/2003, Smt. Meena Devi Vs. Om Prakash as well as against the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Execution Misc. Case No.8 of 2006. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, Adv. for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 and perused the entire material available in file. No one appears for respondent no.2. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent No.2- Smt. Meena Devi got married with the revisionist on 30.6.1999 as per Hindu Rituals. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started physical harassment of respondent no.1 for demand of dowry and also demanded Rs.50,000/- in cash failing which she was threatened to her life. On 18.2.2001, revisionist and his family members committed Marpit with respondent no.2, the complaint of which she made with Patwari Sainji Bali Kandarsun. On 24.2.2001, revisionist submitted his written apology before the Panchs that he would not commit Marpit with her in future. But on 15.6.2002 at 8:00 P.M., revisionist and his family members started abusing respondent no.2 and also committed Marpit with her due to demand of dowry and due to the injuries, she became unconscious. When she came to her senses, then she came at her parental house. On 17.6.2002, she informed the entire matter to her mother and after getting medically examined, she lodged a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Since then respondent no.2 is residing at her parental house where she is being maintained by her mother. On the other hand, it was stated that revisionist was doing worship work and also have his own house and good business and also having some agricultural business from which he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his objection against the application moved by respondent no.2 and denied the averments of the application made by respondent no.2. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal vide his judgment and order dated 12.9.2003 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance w.e.f. 1.6.2003. by the 10th of each month. The arrears were also directed to be paid within one month. Thereafter since the revisionist did not pay the maintenance allowance to the respondent no.2 as directed vide order dated 12.9.2003, the respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C. On that application, the learned Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal vide his order dated 13.7.2006 issued the recovery warrant against the revisionist. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the aforesaid orders. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the amount of maintenance as awarded by court below is excessive. There is no force in this argument advanced by counsel for the revisionist. The respondent no.1-Smt. Meena Devi in support of her case got herself examined as P.W.1 and she also got examined P.W.2 Sri Suresh Chandra and she also filed some documentary evidence. The court below has rightly recorded a finding that the respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist and she is residing at her parental house due to the ousting of revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry. Even the revisionist and his family members tried to kill respondent no.2 for demand of dowry. The respondent no.2 in this regard also lodged a complainant before the concerned Patwari. Hence, the court below rightly reached to the conclusion that the respondent no.2 was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the revisionist and his family members due to demand of dowry as a result of which she is compelled to live at her parental house. Apart from this, she also does not have any source of income and she is totally dependent upon her parents. On the other hand, the revisionist was doing worship work. The revisionist also stated in his evidence before the court below that he earns Rs.30-40 per day from worship work. He also admitted that he was having some agricultural land in his village. Hence, the court below rightly held that it is proved that the revisionist is having sufficient means and is fully able to maintain the respondent no.2. Accordingly, the court below rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 against the revisionist and accordingly allowed the application of the respondent no.2 with costs. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and the revisionist is having sufficient means, however due to ousting of revisionist for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. Thus it is clear that the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance. The arrears were also rightly directed to be paid within one month. However, since the revisionist did not comply with the order dated 12.9.2003, the respondent no.2 was again forced to file an application u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C. The court below after considering the fact that the revisionist is not paying the monthly maintenance allowance as directed vide order dated 12.9.2003, the court below rightly issued Recovery Warrant against the revisionist. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2003 as well as in the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 08.09.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.10.2008 Rajeev Dang