IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.119 of 2005 Ikram S/o Sagir Ahmad … Revisionist Versus Additional Family Court Judge sitting at Camp Roorkee, District Hardwar and another … Respondents Dated: March 18, 2009 Sri Mohd. Safdar, Adv. i/b Sri Parikshit Saini, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2005 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.96/2004, Smt. Shahnaz Vs. Ikram, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.400/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.300/- per month each for her two children, in total Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance. 2. I have heard Sri Mohd. Safdar, Adv. i/b Sri Parikshit Saini, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State and Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Shahnaz got married with the revisionist before 5½ years of moving of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as per Muslim rituals. Out of the said wedlock, two children (a girl and a boy) were born who were residing with the respondent no.2. In the marriage, her father spent Rs.70,000/- as per his status but the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents and they started demanding a scooter and some cash. On non-fulfillment of this demand, they ousted her from the house after committing Marpit with her but after assurance of some relatives, a compromise was entered into and she again came back at her in-laws house. It was also stated that the revisionist is habitual of drinking liquor. On 16.5.1996, revisionist and his sister beaten respondent no.2 badly and they also tried to kill her and ultimately they again ousted her from the house. On 23.5.1996, again a compromise was entered into between them and they again started living together as husband and wife. But on 7.8.1996, again the revisionist ousted her from his house after committing Marpit with her. It was further stated that she does not know any work so as to maintain herself and her children. The revisionist was shown to be a Scooter Mechanic from where he was shown to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month. With all these averments the application for maintenance was moved by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. He also stated that on 22.10.1993 he orally given divorce (Talaq) to the respondent no.2 and also informed her by notice, therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee vide judgment and order dated 30.3.2005 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has filed this revision. 4. Sri Mohd. Safdar, Adv. i/b Sri Parikshit Saini, Adv. for the revisionist submitted that since the revisionist has given divorce (Talaq) to respondent no.2 on 22.10.1993 orally, hence she is not entitled to get any maintenance. I do not find any force in the argument raised by counsel for the revisionist. On the one hand the revisionist says that he gave divorce to respondent no.2 on 22.10.1993 orally but on the other hand, a copy of compromise arrived at between revisionist and respondent no.2 dated 23.5.1996 is on record. If there would have been any divorce between the parties in the year 1993, then there could have been no possibility of any compromise to be arrived at in between them in the year 1996. Even there is no proof of divorce (Talaq) having taken place on 22.10.1993. The revisionist ought to have adduced evidence and could have proved the pronouncement of Talaq on 22.10.1993 and if he failed to prove the plea raised by him in the written statement, the said plea is to be treated as failed. Thus, it is proved that the said pronouncement of Talaq is not proved by the revisionist. Besides this, the written divorce (Talaq) dated 10.2.2003 filed by the revisionist in this Court was not filed by the revisionist before the court below. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court below to have dealt with the written divorce (Talaq). Even in this Court, only the typed copy of the said written divorce has been filed but that has not been verified by anyone, therefore, the same is not admissible as per law. Hence, the finding of the court below that the respondent no.2 is not a divorcee lady and she is the legally wedded wife of revisionist is correct and justified on the basis of evidence on record. 5. So far as maintenance amount is concerned, during the pendency of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent no.2 also moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance of Rs.2,000/- per month. The court below has rightly recorded a finding that in the present scenario, the dearness level is increased on higher side. Therefore, the court below rightly awarded Rs.400/- per month for maintenance of respondent No.2 and Rs.300/- each for her two children, in total Rs.1,000/- per month against the revisionist. 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and her children and due to the reason that she was ousted by revisionist for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife, though he has got sufficient means. 7. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2005 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 09.06.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 18, 2009 Rajeev Dang