HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 65 of 2007 Nirmala D/o Indra Singh, R/o village Bahuli (Motasimal), P.S. Bageshwar, Distt. Bageshwar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus Mangal Singh S/o Bhawan Singh, R/o village Mela Dungri, P.S. Baijnath, Distt. Bageshwar. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist or for the respondent. Dated: August 6, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Crl. Revision no. 11/2005 Mangal Singh Bhandari vs. Smt. Nirmala Bhandari by which the revision preferred by the respondent-Mangal Singh was party allowed and the order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar was modified to the extent that the respondent-husband Mangal Singh shall pay Rs. 500/- to his wife Smt. Nirmala. 2. List has been revised, but none has responded either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondent. I have perused the record as well as the order impugned. 3. From perusal of the record is reveals that initially the revisionist-wife (Smt. Nirmala Bhandari) moved an application before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar against the respondent- Mangal Singh u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she was married with the respondent-Mangal Singh. Soon after the marriage, she was subject to cruelty for demand of dowry and for the reason that she had given birth 2 two daughters. In this continuous process of cruelty, she was ousted by the respondent from his house and no heed was paid towards her. Even no maintenance was paid to her. In this respect the revisionist-wife lodged a F.I.R. on 25.08.2003 at Police Station Baijnath, on 13.11.2003 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bageshwar and on 24.12.2003 to the Superintendent of Police Bageshwar. It is further stated that the respondent has a grocery shop at Teet Bazar, Garur and he is having 100 Nalies of agricultural land and from all resources he earns Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondent-husband filed objection and conceded the marriage in between the parties and birth of the children but he refuted the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry. It is alleged that the respondent-wife is living at her parental house on her own wishes. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar vide his order dated 30.09.2005 allowed the petition filed by the revisionist-wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent- husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month to the petitioner-wife and Rs. 500/- per month to the daughter Km. Hema, till she attains majority, in total Rs. 800/- per month from the date of order. Against this judgment and order the respondent-husband preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, who after hearing learned counsel for the parties vide his impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 party allowed the revision preferred by the respondent-Mangal Singh and modified the order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar to the extent that the respondent- husband Mangal Singh shall pay Rs. 500/- to his wife Smt. Nirmala. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the revisionist-wife has come up in the instant revision. 3 4. It is prayed in the memo of the revision that the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar may be set-aside and the maintenance allowance may be enhanced. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that it is undisputed that marriage was solemnized in between the parties. Birth of two children is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the revisionist-wife is living separately from her husband. It is also established that the revisionist-wife has no means of her livelihood and one of the daughter is living with the respondent- Mangal Singh. Considering the fact that the respondent is continuously paying Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to his wife, the learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the Trial Court to the extent that the respondent-husband shall pay Rs. 500/- per month to the revisionist-wife. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any manifest error of law in passing the order impugned. In my opinion, the order impugned is reasonable and does not warrant any interference at this stage. 6. Otherwise also on a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 06.08.2008 NCM: