IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.36 OF 2008 Apar Singh S/o Sri Shanker Singh R/o Village Nagal Jwalapur, Doiwala Dehradun ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another. ……… Respondents. Dated: September 26, 2008 Sri B.N. Molakhi, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. G.A. for the State Sri Deepak Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 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 Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.18/07, Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Apar Singh, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2-Smt. Sushila Devi u/s 127 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month from the date of the order passed for maintenance. 2. In brief the facts of the case is that respondent no.2-Smt. Sushila Devi moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist, claiming maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month. On that application, the court below has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent no.2. After that the respondent no.2 again moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C., stating therein that the revisionist is working as a Driver in Roadways Department. She further stated that she also moved an application under the Right to Information Act before the revisionist’s department and on that application, Assistant Regional Manager/Public Information Officer has informed her that the revisionist is getting Rs.7,403/- per month as salary. She also stated that the revisionist has wrongly shown his salary as Rs.1,274/- per month. Besides this, it was also stated that the revisionist earns Rs.34,302/- in only three months by selling sugarcane crop. As such, it was stated that the revisionist was earning Rs.19,000/- per month from all resources. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by respondent no.2 and denied most of the allegations made in the application. The revisionist has denied the respondent no.2 to be his legally wedded wife and it was been stated that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the revisionist and respondent no.2. 3. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 u/s 127 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of the order passed for maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the court below has erred in holding that the revisionist earns Rs.7,403/- per month as salary. I do not find any force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist, for the reason that the respondent no.2 Smt. Sushila Devi moved an application under the Right To Infomation Act before the revisionist’s department and on that application the Public Information Officer has informed the respondent no.2 about the revisionist’s salary to be Rs.7,403/- per month. Besides this, the court below has also recorded the finding that although the revisionist has also taken loan from the Employee’s Cooperatives Society and in lieu, thereof an amount of Rs.3,256/- per month is being deducted, however, the revisionist could not show any detail as to where he had invested this amount. Apart from this, the court below has also rightly held that the revisionist is also having income from the agriculture work. Even, the respondent no.2 has clearly stated in her application that the revisionist earns Rs.34,302/- only in three months by selling the sugarcane. Thus, the court below has rightly held that the revisionist earns Rs.7,403/- towards salary and Rs.4,000/- from the agricultural work, in this way, the revisionist earns Rs.12,000/- per month in total and the court below in the circumstances has rightly ordered the revisionist to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondent- wife. 5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her, in order to get rid of payment of the amount of maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the court below has wrongly directed the amount of maintenance to be paid from the date of order passed in maintenance case u/s 125 Cr.P.C., hence it may be directed to be paid from the date of the order passed by the court below u/s 127 Cr.P.C. 7. After considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is in the interest of the justice that the amount of maintenance be directed to be paid from the date of the order passed by the court below, i.e., 29.1.2008. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 29.1.2008 is confirmed to the extent that the revisionist shall pay Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2, however, the amount of maintenance shall be paid from the date of order passed u/s 127 Cr.P.C., i.e., 29.1.2008. 9. Interim order dated 22.02.2008 passed by this Court shall stand vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.09.2008 RG