IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.89 OF 2005 Suresh Giri … Revisionist Versus Judge Family Court Roorkee & another … Respondents Dated: October 29, 2010 None is present either for the revisionist or for respondent no.2 Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 8.4.05 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Misc. Case No.71/04, Smt. Malti Devi Vs. Suresh Giri. Perused the entire material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, which was allowed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar on 30.7.2003 whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance. Thereafter on 7.3.05, the respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the earlier maintenance order was decided without any documentary evidence and looking to the changed circumstances and the income of the revisionist, she intends to file some documentary evidence, and she may be permitted to do so. Against the said application, the revisionist filed his objection on 21.3.2005. Vide order dated 8.4.05, the Addl. Family Judge, Roorkeee allowed the application of the respondent no.2. Hence this revision. There is no representation on behalf of the revisionist, though list has been revised and even power on his behalf has also been filed by Sri Pawan Kumar. So far as the trial court’s judgment is concerned, it was rightly been held that as per Section 127 Cr.P.C., it could not be said that the evidence cannot be recorded. It was further rightly held that by adopting the 2 prescribed procedure of law, if any real and true facts have come to be noticed, in that case, it is in the interest of justice to take the evidence at any stage. It was further rightly held that since in this case it was necessary to have correct information about the income of the respondent no.2 and that of revisionist as well as in the changed circumstances, it is necessary to have the evidence on record. Accordingly, the trial court allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 and I do not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order dated 8.4.05 passed by the trial court. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 13.4.2005 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) October 29, 2010 Rajeev Dang