IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 100 of 2009 Smt. Jubeda & Ors. .…. Revisionists Versus Ashfakh ……… Respondent July 12, 2010 None for the revisionists. Mr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate for the respondent. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.4.2009 passed the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 170/2005, Smt. Jubeda & Ors. v. Ashfakh u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the said application for maintenance was rejected in respect of revisionists no. 1 to 3. However, revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen, minor daughter of revisionist no. 1 and the respondent, was awarded Rs. 1000/- per month towards her maintenance with effect from the date of making the said application till her marriage 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the revisionist no. 1 Smt. Jubeda got married with the respondent in the year 2001 as per the Muslim rites. Revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen born from the said wedlock. Before that, revisionist no. 1 had married to Rayees Ahmad in the year 1993 and revisionist no. 2 Km. Shaheen and revisionist no. 3 Rashid born from the first marriage of the revisionist no. 1. Subsequently, divorce took place between revisionist no. 1 and her first husband on 13.1.1998 and it was agreed that both revisionists no. 2 & 3 would live with their father i.e. ex-husband of revisionist no. 1. Respondent had earlier also married to one Smt. Rabia and six children born from this wedlock, but Smt. Rabia died in the year 2001. Thereafter revisionist no. 1 and the respondent married with each other and from this wedlock, revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen born. It was alleged by the revisionist no. 1 that soon after the marriage, respondent started to harass and torture her for dowry and ultimately ousted her from his house on 2.4.2003. Thereafter she moved the aforesaid maintenance application stating that she is unable to maintain herself and her children and claimed Rs. 5000/- per month for herself and Rs. 5000/- per month for her children i.e. Rs. 10,000/- per month in total. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 1.4.2009 rejected the aforesaid application in respect of the revisionists no. 1 to 3. However, the said maintenance application was allowed in respect of revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen and the respondent was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- per month to revisionist no. 4 with effect from the date of making the application till her marriage. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 1.4.2009, the revisionists has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the papers available on record. None appeared for the revisionists. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 1.4.2009 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. Undisputedly, revisionists no. 2 & 3 born from the first marriage of revisionist no. 1 with Rayees Ahmad and on 13.1.1998, divorce took place between them and it was written in the talaknama that revisionists no. 2 & 3 would live with their father Rayees Ahmad, who shall be responsible for maintenance of 2 revisionists no. 2 & 3. In fact, Sakhawat Hussain, father of the revisionist no. 1 had brought her daughter Smt. Jubeda from the house of the respondent and thereafter she never went in the house of respondent. In his statement, Sakhawat Hussain (PW2) has admitted that he does not want to send his daughter (revisionist no. 1) and if the respondent would transfer his house in the name of daughter of revisionist no. 1 only then he can send his daughter Smt. Jubeda. Before the trial court, respondent also agreed to live with the revisionists and proposed to bring them to his house but reconciliation efforts failed between the parties. Thus, it is apparent that revisionist no. 1 is living along with her father as per her own free will and she has refused to live with her husband/respondent and, therefore, as per the provisions contained in Section 125(4) CrPC, she is not entitled for any maintenance. As discussed above, revisionists no. 2 & 3 have born from the first marriage of the revisionist no. 1 and present respondent is not their father. It was also agreed at the time of divorce of the revisionist no. 1 and her first husband that the responsibility of maintaining the revisionists no. 2 & 3 shall be of her first husband. Therefore, in these circumstances, learned trial court has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance in respect of revisionists no. 1 to 3. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to revisionist no. 4 from the date of making the application till her marriage. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed as such. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 1.4.2009 and it requires no interference by this Court. 3 8. Resultantly, the revision is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 1.4.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 170/2005, Smt. Jubeda & Ors. v. Ashfakh u/s 125 CrPC is hereby affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH 4