IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 160 of 2003 Ramesh Chand .…. Revisionist Versus Smt. Tara Devi & Ors. ……… Respondents February 24, 2010 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Advocate for the respondents. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Matrimonial Misc. Case No. 93/2002, Ramesh Chand v. Tara Devi u/s 127 CrPC filed on behalf of the revisionist, whereby the Judge, Family Court has rejected the said application of the husband-revisionist and allowed the application of the wife-respondent no. 1 filed u/s 125 CrPC and awarded maintenance with effect from the date of application i.e. 7.10.1992 amounting to Rs. 400/- per month to the wife-respondent no. 1 Tara Devi, Rs. 300/- per month to respondents no. 2 & 3 Minakshi & Rakesh till 23.6.1998, Rs. 200/- per month to Purnima till the date of her death, Rs. 300/- per month to respondent no. 4 Gajendra till June, 1998, Rs. 200/- per month to respondent no. 5 Km. Neeraj till the year 1998 and Rs. 200/- per month to respondent no. 6 Km. Sitakshi till June, 1998, being the minor children of the respondent no. 1. It was further directed that the said amount of maintenance shall be payable by 10th date of every month and the outstanding shall be paid in three equal installments. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the revisionist- husband and wife-respondent no. 1 got married to each other on 29.11.1976 as per Hindu rituals. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist started to harass her wife- respondent no. 1 and also beaten her on several occasions. Meanwhile, six children born out of their wedlock. On 20.7.1992, the revisionist ousted his wife-respondent no. 1 and her children from the house. Thereafter wife-respondent no. 1 Smt. Tara Devi filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC against the revisionist Ramesh Chand claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month for herself and for each of the minor children. On the basis of the said application, a misc. case no. 134 of 1992 was registered in the Court of Special Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, which was allowed vide ex parte judgment and order dated 11.11.1993 and the revisionist was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to respondent no. 1, Rs. 300/- per month to respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 and Rs. 200/- per month to respondents no. 5 & 6 as well as to Km. Purnima (now deceased) from the date of application i.e. 7.10.1992. Thereafter the revisionist alleging change of circumstances filed an application u/s 127 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun for modification in the aforesaid order dated 11.11.1993, which was registered as misc. case no. 514/1999. Meanwhile, the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court was created in Dehradun and the case was transferred to the Family Court. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun rejected the aforesaid application of the revisionist vide judgment and order dated 6.7.2002 and directed for issuance of recovery and arrest warrant against the revisionist on 1.8.2002. 3. Being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred a Criminal Revision before this Court against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.7.2002, which was allowed by the 2 judgment and order dated 10.3.2003 passed by this Court and the case was remanded back to the Family Court for deciding afresh the aforesaid application of the revisionist u/s 127 CrPC. Thereafter the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun after hearing learned Counsel for parties and after considering the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 rejected the application of the revisionist filed u/s 127 CrPC and allowed the application of the respondents and directed the revisionist to pay the monthly maintenance to the respondents as discussed above. Hence, this revision has been preferred. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 5. Undisputedly, the application u/s 125 CrPC filed by the wife-respondent no. 1 was allowed ex parte. Thereafter the application of the revisionist u/s 127 CrPC was also rejected, revision against which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.3.2003 and the matter was remanded back directing the Family Court to decide afresh the application of the revisionist u/s 127 CrPC after considering the changed circumstances. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 reveals that the court below has considered the changed circumstances in the entirety. Moreover, it was an admitted case of wife- respondent no. 1 that since 1998, respondents no. 3 to 6 were living along with the revisionist-father at Delhi and only respondent no. 2 Meenakshi was living with her mother-respondent no. 1 at Dehradun and one daughter Km. Purnima passed away. The court below has also considered the aspect of the children who attained the age of majority. Thus, all the changed circumstances were considered by the court below and accordingly, the 3 maintenance amount were awarded. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and it requires no interference by this Court. 6. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Matrimonal Misc. Case No. 93/2002, Ramesh Chand v. Tara Devi u/s 127 CrPC filed on behalf of the revisionist is hereby affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.2.2010 PRABODH 4