IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.70 OF 2007 Phool Singh S/o Jeet Singh R/o Village-Haripur (Charanpur) Chauki Dineshpur, P.S.-Rudrapur District-Udham Singh Nagar ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Sundari W/o Phool Singh 2. State of Uttarakhand .…... Respondents Dated: December 2, 2008 None is present for the revisionist. Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State/respondent no.2 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.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.4.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.44/2004, Smt. Sundari Devi Vs. Phool Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1 from the date of application i.e. 25.2.2004. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 7th of each month. 2. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 as well as Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sundari Devi-respondent no.1 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar stating therein she got married with the revisionist-Phool Singh before two years as per Hindu RITES and in the marriage parents of respondent no.1 gave sufficient dowry. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of respondent no.1 and after two months of the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started demanding Colour T.V., Cooler and also demanded cash. On her refusal, respondent no.1 was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the revisionist and his family members. It was also stated that before one year the revisionist and his family members committed Marpeet with the respondent no.1 and she was ousted from the house in her wearing clothes. Since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that the revisionist is the only son of his parents and his parents have 10 acres of land of which he is the only heir. Besides this, the revisionist has a constructed house and has also kept animals. As such, it was stated that the revisionist earns Rs.15,000/- per month from all sources. On the other hand, it was stated that the respondent no.1 is illiterate and does not know knitting and sewing work and is dependant upon her parents, who are also unable to maintain her. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the respondent no.1 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and admitted respondent no.1 to be his legally wedded wife but denied 3 rest of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 4.4.2007, directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.4.2007, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.1 was ousted from the house by the revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry. Due to the ousting by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house. Respondent no.1 is illiterate lady and she does not know any knitting and sewing work and is therefore unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the revisionist is the only heir of his parents and he has 10 acres land and also a constructed house. The revisionist has also kept animals and from all sources he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. The revisionist is intentionally neglecting respondent no.1 for the demand of dowry though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife- respondent no.1. Hence, the court below rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1 from the date of application i.e. 25.2.2004. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 4.4.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the aforesaid order. 4 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 20.4.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 02.12.2008 RG