HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 187 of 2004 Sanjay Kumar S/o Rattan Lal, R/o Laksar, Police Station-Laksar, District Haridwar. ----Applicant/ Revisionist. Versus 1. Smt. Sunita W/o Sanjay Kumar, D/o Ramesh Chand R/o Shankar Ashram, Jwalapur, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar. 2. State of Uttarakhand, through Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. ------ Respondents None for the revisionist, Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Dated: 27th March, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been directed against the order dated 25.10. 2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. case no. 104 of 2004 Sanjay vs. Sunita whereby the learned Judge, Family Court kept for entertaining the application of the revisionist moved u/s 126 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) subject to payment of the entire amount of the interim maintenance allowance Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Brief facts, which emerge out from the record, are that the respondent no.1 filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the revisionist before the Court below stating therein inter-alia that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist on 19.04.2000. Her husband was not satisfied with the dowry given to him at the time of the marriage was solemnized, therefore, he left her to her brother’s house with his further demand of dowry. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 has no source of earning whatsoever. The revisionist/ 2 husband earns a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicant/respondent no. 1 has prayed that she may be given a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- for her delivery and Rs. 800/- per month as her maintenance from the revisionist. 3. Notice was sent to the revisionist and he turned up before the Court below. The learned Judge Family Court after considering on the application of the respondent no.1, moved for interim maintenance, directed the revisionist/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to his wife as interim maintenance. Thereafter; the revisionist absented himself and did not participate in the proceedings. The respondent no.1 produced her oral evidence and stated that a female child was born out of the wedlock during the pendency of the case. The learned Judge, Family Court vide his order dated 15.06.2004 allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. ex-parte and directed the revisionist/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- per month as final maintenance to his wife and Rs. 400/- per month to his daughter. On 14.07.2004 the revisionist moved application u/s 126 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Court below with the request to recall the order as well as for restoration of the case and the learned Court below passed the impugned order dated 25.10.2004 directing the revisionist to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- of the interim maintenance. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the revisionist was depositing the interim maintenance but due to his ailments he could not appear before the Court below and ignoring this significant aspect, the Court below has passed the ex-parte order, which is not justified and liable to be quashed. 3 5. No one is present on behalf of the revisionist. I have heard Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/ wife and perused the record. 6. This Court on 17.02.2005 stayed operation of the impugned order subject to the condition that the revisionist shall pay 50% of the maintenance allowance to the respondent which has been granted by the impugned order dated 15.06.2004 within a period of one month, failing which the stay order granted in favour of the revisionist, shall automatically stand vacated. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an application before this Court seeking modification of the order passed by this Court on 17.02.2005. On which this Court vide order dated 08.04.2005 directed that the order dated 17.02.2005 is stayed only subject to the condition that the revisionist shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no.1 within a period of one month positively and the rest of the amount shall be paid by him in easy monthly installment of Rs. 10,000/- each subsequently. 7. Nothing apparent from the face of record that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 17.02.2005 and 08.04.2005, the revisionist has paid any amount to respondent no.1. None is present on behalf of the revisionist today. 8. Even otherwise, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. On assessment of overall facts and circumstances and material on record, the Court below is justified in passing the order dated 25.10.2004 while considering on the application of the revisionist moved u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. by which the Court below kept for entertaining the application of the revisionist, subject to payment of the entire amount of the interim maintenance allowance Rs. 10,000/-, which does not warrant any interference by this 4 Court. Thus, the revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: