IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 169 of 2004 Manoj Kumar Yadav .…. Revisionist Versus State & Others …………… Respondents April 27, 2009 None for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 & 3. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in case no. 215/2003, Smt. Amita Yadav & Anr. v. Manoj Kumar Yadav under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby learned Family Judge has allowed the application for interim maintenance and awarded monthly interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- to respondent no. 2 & 3 respectively. 2. Brief facts, as set out before trial court, are that Smt. Amita Yadav/respondent no. 2 got married to revisionist Manoj Kumar Yadav on 11.12.1997. They have a son from the said wedlock, who was born on 4.4.1999. Revisionist and his family members demanded dowry and when their demands were not fulfilled, they ousted the respondents no. 2 & 3 from their house on 8.7.2002 after beating them. Since then, respondent no. 2 along with her son is living with her parents. Thereafter she made an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month each for herself and her minor son alleging that she has no source of livelihood, whereas revisionist’s monthly income is around Rs. 20,000/- from the work of welding contracts. 2 3. Revisionist filed his objections before the trial court and learned Family Judge after considering the matter and financial condition of the parties, allowed the application for interim maintenance and awarded monthly interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- to respondent no. 2 & 3 respectively. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 and learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. List has been revised but none appeared on behalf of the revisionist. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 27.8.2004 and other materials available on record reveals that respondents no. 2 & 3, who are respectively the wife and minor son of the revisionist, are living separately in their maternal house having been ousted by the revisionist from his house. It also transpires from the record that revisionist, in spite of having sufficient means, has intentionally been neglecting his wife and minor son and respondent no. 2 is unable to maintain herself and her minor son having no source of livelihood of her own. As such, in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court has rightly awarded the monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- to respondent no. 2 & 3 respectively. I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 27.8.2004 and hence, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. 6. Therefore, revision is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not prevail upon while dealing with the final merits of the case. Interim order dated 16.11.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.04.2009 PRABODH 3