IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL REVISION No.215 of 2006 Virendra Singh … Revisionist Versus Smt. Puspa Devi and others … Respondents (2) CRIMINAL REVISION No.138 of 2008 Smt. Pushpa Devi & another … Revisionists Versus State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Dated: March 23, 2009 Revision No.215 of 2006- 1. Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Adv. for the revisionist 2. Sri B.P. Nautiyal, Adv. for the respondent nos.1 & 2 3. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.3 Revision No.138 of 2007- 1. Sri B.P. Nautiyal, Adv. for the revisionists 2. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 3. Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Adv. for the respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Both these revisions have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal and the matter in dispute is also one and the same, hence both these revisions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment and order. Both the criminal revisions, preferred by the revisionists’ under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27.09.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Crl. Case No.31 of 2006, Smt. Pushpa and another Vs. Virendra Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist-husband (Virendra Singh) to pay Rs.4,500/- per month (Rs.2,700/- per month for wife and Rs.1,800/- per month for daughter) as maintenance allowance to the respondent–wife from the date of application. Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Adv. for the revisionist- husband, Sri B.P. Nautiyal, Adv. for the respondent nos.1 & 2-wife and daughter and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.3 and perused the entire material available on record. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1-wife (Smt. Pushpa Devi) moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist-Virendra Singh on 5.5.2002 as per Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock, a girl Km. Kanika (respondent no.2) was born. Soon after the marriage, she was being harassed by revisionist-husband and his family members for dowry and they also demanded Rs.50,000/- from her. It was also stated that on 29.10.2005, revisionist-husband and his family members ousted the respondent no.1-wife along with his daughter. The father of respondent no.1 persuaded the revisionist and his family members understand but all was in vein. It was further stated that revisionist is posted as Lecturer in a Govt. Inter College, Pauri Garhwal from where he gets Rs.12,000/- per month. On the other hand, respondent no.1-wife has no source of earning and she is unable to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1- wife and Rs.3,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2-daughter, in total Rs.8,000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal per judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist-Virendra Singh has filed Crl. Revision No.215/2006. Criminal Revision No.138 of 2008 has been preferred by wife-Smt. Pushpa Devi on behalf of herself and her daughter for enhancement. Sri D.C.S. Rawat, Adv. for the revisionist- husband has argued that the court below has wrongly awarded the maintenance against the revisionist. I do not find any force in this argument. As per the evidence on record, the court below recorded finding that the revisionist gets Rs.10,650/- per month as he is posted as a Lecturer in Govt. Inter College. Except respondent no.1-wife and no.2- daughter, no other responsibility is there upon the revisionist. The respondent no.1-wife also stated before the court below that she needs Rs.3,000/- per month towards her needs viz. clothing, fooding and medical etc. The court below also held that after analyzing the financial and social status of the parties, an amount of Rs.2,700/- per month for wife and Rs.1,800/- per month for her daughter, in total Rs.4,500/- per month for their maintenance was justified and accordingly the court below awarded the same. I also agree with the findings recorded by the court below for determining the monthly maintenance. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent no.1- wife is unable to maintain herself and her daughter and due to the reason that she was ousted by the revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife, though he has got sufficient means to maintain her and her daughter. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal. For the reasons recorded above, the criminal revision No.215 of 2006 is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 12.12.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. Consequently, criminal revision No.138 of 2008 preferred for enhancement also stands dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 23, 2009 Rajeev Dang