IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.65 OF 2006 Suresh Chandra ……… Revisionist Versus State and others ..…... Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 None is present for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Dependra Singh Patni, Advocate i/b Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5 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 30.1.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Didihat, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2/wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month each for maintenance of respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 (in total Rs.3,000/- per month), from the date of order. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 10th of each month. In case of default of two consecutive installments, it was directed that the respondent no.2 would be at liberty to recover the entire amount in lump sum. 2. List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Dependra Singh Patni, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 6. Perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent no.2) moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist in the 2 year 1992 as per Hindu RITES. She further stated that the behaviour of the revisionist was normal with her up to two years but after that the revisionist started harassing her physically and mentally. It is further alleged that the revisionist and her mother-in-law used to harass her for the demand of dowry. It is further stated that there are four minor children (two sons and two daughters) out of the wedlock. The revisionist also used to commit marpeet with the children. It is further alleged that in July 2004 the revisionist kept a mistress in his house and asked her (respondent no.2) to leave the house. In this regard, a panchayat was also held in order to solve the matter between them but on 6.11.2004 the revisionist ousted the respondent no.2 along with the children. It is further stated that since then the respondent no.2 and her children are residing at her parental house. It is further stated that she is having no source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her children. On the other hand, the revisionist’s economic condition is very sound. He has about 10 arces of land and also running flour mill, Dhan machine, oil machine etc. and from all these sources, he earns Rs.20,000/- per month. Besides this, he is also having residential house. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.13,000/- per month was sought by respondent no.2 for maintenance of herself and her children. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his objections. He admitted the fact of marriage with respondent no.2 and also the children born out of the wedlock but denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Didihat, vide his judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated, the 3 revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. The present revision has been assailed mainly on the ground that the court below has awarded the amount of maintenance against the revisionist without appreciating the evidence on record. Respondent no.2 Smt. Sheela Devi has levelled a charge against the revisionist that he used to commit Marpeet with her in the state of intoxication. It has further been alleged that the revisionist and his mother also used to harass her mentally and physically for the demand of dowry. The revisionist also used to beat respondent nos.3 to 6. It has further been alleged that in July 2004 the revisionist kept a mistress with him and thereafter he ousted respondent no.2 and her children (respondent nos.3 to 6) from the house due to which she is bound to live at her parental house. Respondent no.2 examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined her daughter Km. Priyanka (respondent no.3) as P.W.2, who has also supported the above-said facts. From the above said facts, it is proved that the respondent no.2 along with children was ousted from the house by the revisionist. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, respondent no.2 has stated that the revisionist has about 10 arces of land and also running flour mill, Dhan machine, oil machine etc. and from all these sources, he earns Rs.20,000/- per month. On the other hand, the revisionist has denied all these averments and has stated that he works in the flour mill of his brother and his brother pays Rs.1500/- per month to him. He has also stated that his monthly income is Rs.2,000/-, however, no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the revisionist in support of this fact. Hence, in these circumstances, when the revisionist has not produced any evidence in support of his income, I am of the view that the court below has rightly awarded the amount of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2/wife and Rs.500/- per month each to respondent nos.3 to 6. 4 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is unable to maintain herself and her children (respondent nos.3 to 6) and due to ousting by revisionist for the demand of dowry, she along with her children is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife and his children though he has got sufficient means to maintain them. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent nos.2 to 6 for their maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 8. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Didihat. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 14, 2010 RG