IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2007 Purushottam Singh Jethuri S/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh Jethuri At present residing at Shyampur Gurzar Farm, P .O. Satyanarain, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Kavita Jethuri D/o Shri Bachan Singh R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pashulok Baraj, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2006, passed by the Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2005, whereby said court has directed the revisionist (husband) to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), to the respondent Kavita Jethuri (wife). 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that, the revisionist Purushottam Singh Jethuri got married to respondent No. 2 Kavita Jethuri on 21.04.2003, in Village Dogiwala, District Haridwar. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court alleging that she was harassed by her husband and in-laws for insufficiency of dowry, and she was left in her parental house in Rishikesh, in April 2004. It is pleaded by her that she is a student of B.A., and unable to maintain herself. It is also pleaded that revisionist (husband) is Rifleman in the Indian Army and his salary is Rs. 15,000/- per month. With these pleadings she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 4) The revisionist contested the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. moved by respondent No. 2 before the trial court, and filed his written statement. He admitted that he was married to respondent No. 2. It is also not denied that he is serving in the Indian Army. However, as to the rest of allegations, he denied the same. He pleaded that respondent No. 2 without any rhyme and reason goes to her parental house and does not care to see the parents of the revisionist. It is also pleaded by the revisionist that he, on the request of 3 respondent no. 2 made available a separate rented accommodation for her. It is also pleaded that the respondent No. 2 is B.A., and she can earn for herself. It is also pleaded that he got sent a notice through his Advocate asking her to return to revisionist’s house, else he would file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but she did not bother, and as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 5) The trial court recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 is unable to maintain herself. It is further found by the trial court that the revisionist (husband) has means to maintain his wife but neglected to maintain her, as such, directed him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. 6) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued before this Court that since the respondent No. 2 (wife) lives separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, as such, she is not entitled to the maintenance claimed by her, as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Had the respondent not been in the Army and he was living in his parental house it could have been said that the wife has started living separately from her husband, but in the present case, admittedly the revisionist is in Army. It is nowhere pleaded by him that he had any family quarter in which his wife was living with him from where she has gone 4 to her parental house. Merely for the reason that the wife has left the house of in-laws, where the revisionist was not living, it cannot be said that the wife has started living separately from her husband. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 is disentitled to maintenance under sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 7) As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, considering the fact that the revisionist is serving admittedly in the Indian Army as Rifleman, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month directed to be paid by him to his wife, cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Considering the economic status of the parties, any amount less than Rs. 1,500/- per month would be insufficient to maintain respondent No. 2. 8) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any force in this revision, which is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 31, 2010. H. Negi