IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 143 OF 2006 Gurjeet Singh S/o Sri Manohar Singh, R/o village Vamanpur, Tehsil Sitarganj, P.S. Sitarganj, Distt. U.S. Nagar. ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, 2.Smt. Kulvinder Kaur @ Rajvinder Kaur, w/o Sri Gurjeet Singh D/o Sri Jag Singh, r/o village Punnapur, Tehsil Khatima, P.S. Khatime, Distt. U.S. Nagar. .……….Respondents Dated: September 10 , 2008 Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. None for 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 15.07.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in case no. 26 of 2005 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur @ Rajvinder Kaur vs. Gurjeet Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has partly allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife- respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the wife- 2 respondent no.2 from the date of filing the application i.e. 19.02.2005 by 15th of every month. It is further directed the amount of maintenance already paid shall be adjusted and the arrears amounting to Rs. 16,851/- be paid in installments @ Rs. 800/- per month, after adjusting the amount already paid. In default of making payment of three regular installments, the applicant shall entitle to get all the arrears in lump sum. 2. None is present for the respondent no.2. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 and perused the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent Smt. Kulvinder Kaur moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Gurjeet Singh for award of maintenance for herself with the averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized 7 years before in accordance with the Shikh’s rites. It is stated that the revisionist was not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage thus he started beating her. On 01.01.2005 the revisionist, who employed outside, came to home and gave her beating and ousted her from his house in her wearing clothes. Form that period she is living with her parental home. It is stated that the applicant came to know that the revisionist has 3 married to one Deepa and a daughter has born out of this relation. The applicant is less educated and is not skillful therefore she is unable to maintain herself. The revisionist is an Electrician and earns a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. He owns agricultural land and from all resources he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. Refuting the averments made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he refuted the allegations of demand of dowry. It is stated that on the pressure built by the applicant the revisionist started living at his in-law’s house alongwith his wife but when the relations got strained, he left the house. It is stated that he does labour work and has no permanent sources of income. Both the parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Trial Court vide his judgment and order dated 15.07.2006 partly allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the wife-respondent no.2 from the date of filing the application i.e. 19.02.2005 by 15th of every month. It is further directed the amount of maintenance already paid shall be adjusted and the arrears amounting to Rs. 16,851/- be paid in installments @ Rs. 800/- per month, after adjusting the amount already paid. In default of making payment of three regular installments, the 4 applicant shall entitle to get all the arrears in lump sum. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration, the written statement of the revisionist. It is argued that the revisionist has no permanent source of income and he is a labour. It is argued that the respondent-wife has alternative source of income as she does embroidery and tailoring work and she is able to maintain herself. But on perusal of the order of the trial court the court below has reached to the conclusion that the revisionist had started living at his in-law’s house alongwith his wife. A house was also constructed there. But the revisionist deserted his wife and no heed is being paid towards her. So far the re-marriage is concerned, this fact is not proved by the wife through her evidence. Further no evidence is produced in regard to the alternative source of income of the respondent-wife. The trial court has fully considered the petition as also the written objection of the revisionist while passing the order impugned. The Court below arrived to the conclusion that the revisionist deserted his wife and no heed is being paid towards her, therefore the court below found her entitled for maintenance. Further no evidence was produced in regard to the income of the revisionist therefore, the trial Court has rightly directed the 5 revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance. Hence, the learned court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order impugned, which does not warrant interference at this stage. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.07.2006. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 18.08.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.09.2008 NCM