IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.216 of 2007 Akshay Kumar @ Lovely S/o Kali Ram, R/o Vill. Akbarpur, Khajuri P.S. Gagaledi, Distt. Saharanpur … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another … Respondents Dated: September 3, 2008 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State/Respondent Nos.1 Sri Pramod Belwal, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 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 26.09.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun in Case No.5/2006, Smt. Bhavna Thakur vs. Akshay Kumar @ Lovely, whereby the learned Additional Family Judge has allowed the application moved by Respondent No.2-Smt. Bhavna Thakur u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to Respondent No.2 from the date of application. 2. I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/Respondent Nos.1 and Sri Pramod Belwal, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available on record. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.2-Smt. Bhavna Thakur moved an application on 24.2.2006 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh stating therein that on 15.02.2002, she was married with the revisionist-Akshay Kumar @ Lovely as per Hindu Rituals and her parents spent about Rs.3.00 lacs in marriage in lieu of domestic items, jewellery and marriage ceremony. It was also stated that parents of respondent no.2 gave dowry more than their status, however after passing of 4-5 months of marriage, revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.2 for getting less dowry. The father of respondent no.2 thereafter also gave Rs.25,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and thereafter again Rs.5,000/- (in total Rs.35,000/-) on various dates. However, even then the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and they again started pressurizing her to get Rs.50,000/- more in lieu of dowry. When the respondent no.2 shown her inability to get the said amount from her father, then she was physically and mentally harassed by the revisionist and his family members. It was also stated that on 11.11.2003, revisionist had left the respondent no.2 at her parental house, but on 16.4.2004 on the intervention and persuasion of some relatives, the revisionist took respondent no.2 along with him. Thereafter, on 12.6.2004 when the respondent no.2 became seriously ill, the revisionist took her along with him at a rental accommodation and again he started demanding Rs.3.00 in dowry from her. On the inability shown by respondent no.2, the revisionist left her at that rented accommodation. The respondent no.2 waited for revisionist for several days but he did not come. Ultimately, she came at her parental house and since then she is residing there. It was stated that she is an unemployed lady and also does not possess any technical qualification and due to this reason, she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist is running a Hair Dressing Saloon at Chhidarwala along with his brothers out of which he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. Besides this, it was also stated that he was doing business of property dealing from which he also earns plenty of money and he is also having some ancestral property. With all the aforesaid averments, an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2. On the other hand, revisionist filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the application moved by respondent no.2 and also denied any allegation for demand of dowry. It was also stated that the respondent no.2 is also working as a Teacher from where he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Besides this, it was also stated that she was also doing beautician work in her father’s shop at Rishikesh and from there also, she earns Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, it was stated on behalf of revisionist that respondent no.2 is able to maintain herself. The learned Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun after hearing both the parties and after perusing all the facts and circumstances of the case, vide his judgment and order dated 26.09.2007 allowed the application moved by Respondent No.2-Smt. Bhavna Thakur u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to Respondent No.2 from the date of application. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pramod Belwal, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, both have given their joint consent at bar that the present revision may be disposed of with the direction to the revisionist to pay Rs.1,250/- per month to Respondent Nos.2-Smt. Bhavna Thakur from the date of judgment and order passed by the court below i.e. 26.09.2007. 5. In view of the aforesaid agreement between both the parties, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the revisionist-Akshay Kumar @ Lovely shall pay Rs.1,250/- per month to respondent no.2-Smt. Bhavna Thakur from the date of judgment and order passed by Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun i.e. 26.09.2007. Interim order dated 2.11.2007 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) September 3, 2008 Rajeev Dang