IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.123 of 2008 Smt. Mamta W/o Ansuya Prasad … Revisionist Versus Ansuya Prasad S/o Prem Lal … Respondent Dated: October 20, 2008 Sri Arvind Vashisth, Adv. for the revisionist No one appears for respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 05.04.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.292/2006, Smt. Mamta and another Vs. Ansuya Prasad, whereby the respondent has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to Revisionist No.1-wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to Revisionist No.2-daughter, in total Rs.3,000/- per month, as maintenance allowance from the date of order. 2. Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the revisionist. No one appears for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Revisionist No.1- Smt. Mamta moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and for her daughter with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 20.10.2004 as per Hindu RITES. It was also stated that the parents of revisionist no.1 had done their best at the time of marriage, however the respondent and his family members were not satisfied as their demand of dowry could not be fulfilled. The behaviour of respondent and his family members was cruel towards the revisionist no.1 from the very first day. It was also stated that when the respondent had come to see off revisionist no.1, then he told her that whenever she comes back, she should bring Rs.1.00 lac otherwise his mother would not permit her to live at Delhi. On 4.2.2005, when the revisionist no.1 came back, then the respondent again harassed her for bringing sum of Rs.1.00 lac in dowry. When she shown her inability to bring that amount, then she was physically assaulted by the respondent and his family members and that too when she was pregnant. On 13.9.2005, revisionist no.1 gave birth to a girl (revisionist no.2) out of the aforesaid wedlock. Thereafter, on 16.11.2005, brother in law of revisionist no.1 left her along with her daughter at her parental house at Dehradun and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that revisionist no.1 is having no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist is a healthy and rich person and is earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month and he has also worked in Dubai. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was sought as maintenance by revisionist no.1 against her husband-respondent. The respondent-husband also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement to the application moved by revisionist no.1 and stated that the application is not maintainable as the revisionist no.1 had concealed the proceedings u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. He also denied that he ever raised any demand of dowry from the revisionist no.1 or her parents. It was also stated that she is a highly qualified women and she is working as a Teacher in Asian Public School situated in Dehradun and drawing monthly salary of Rs.9,500/- per month. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 05.04.2008 directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.2,000/- for maintenance of revisionist no.1 and Rs.1,000/- for revisionist no.2 from the date of order. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionists have preferred the present revision before this Court for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the amount of maintenance allowance as awarded by court below is not as per the evidence produced before the court below. I do not find any force in the argument raised by counsel for the revisionist. In the present case, the respondent stated before the court below that he is a labourer and was having no source of income. The respondent also admitted that he worked in Grand Hotel for two years and that is a Five Star Hotel and from there, he was getting Rs.3500-4000 per month. He also stated that he was getting 700 Daram in Dubai and one Daram is equal to Rs.11/-. In this way, the respondent’s salary was Rs.7700/- per month. The respondent stated before the court that he was not doing any work, however the trial court rightly recorded the finding that it is the responsibility of the respondent to maintain his wife and children. The respondent also admitted to be earning Rs.3500-4000 per month and even the respondent admitted that he was getting Rs.7700/- (i.e. 700 Daram in Dubai) per month as salary. Hence, the court below after considering the entire facts and circumstances decided the earning capacity of the revisionist to be Rs.6000/- per month. As such, the trial court after perusing the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case is correct and justified in awarding Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of revisionist no.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of revisionist no.2. Thus, the court below after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case rightly awarded the amount of maintenance allowance as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists further argued that the trial court has erred in awarding the maintenance to the revisionists from the date of order and not from the date of application. I do not find any force in the argument advanced by counsel for the revisionists. From the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I am of the view that the trial court is correct and justified in awarding maintenance to the revisionists from the date of order and not from the date of application. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 5.4.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.10.2008 Rajeev Dang