HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 54 of 2006 Satya Prakash Gupta S/o Kanhaiyalal Gupta, R/o village Pandev Wali Haldi Kala, P.S. Meerganj Bareilly, District Bareilly. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.Smt. Laxmi Gupta W/o Sri Satya Prakash Gupta, D/o Sri Asharfi Lal Gupta, R/o Ward no.4, Old Bhumi Mandir, Sitraganj, P.S./Tehsil Sitraganj, U.S. Nagar, 2.State of Uttarakhand, ------- Respondents Sri M.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri J.S. Virk, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.2, Dated: August 12, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Crl. Case no. 76/2005 Smt. Laxmi Gupta vs. Satya Prakash, whereby the petition filed by the wife-respondent no. 1 against the husband-revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife-respondent as maintenance from the date of filing the application i.e. from 16.04.2005 by 25th of each month. It is further directed that the arrears amounting to Rs. 22,581/- which is due at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, shall be paid @ Rs. 2,000/- per month as an additional installment alongwith the amount of maintenance. In default of payment of continuous three installments, the wife-respondent will be at liberty to realize the same in a lump sum. 2 2. Heard Sri M.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri J.S. Virk, learned counsel for the respondent no.- 1 and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.2 and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-wife filed a petition against the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding maintenance to her from the revisionist with the averments inter-alia that her marriage was solemnized with the revisionist on 22.06.2004. After the marriage she was subjected to cruelty by the revisionist and his family members for less dowry. In the month of January 2005 she was beaten badly due to which her miscarriage had happened. No treatment was given to her. Knowing about her, when her mother came to bring her, the revisionist told to give a plot at Sitarganj for construction of house, otherwise he would not give shelter to the petitioner. He threatened that he will remarry. On 17.02.2005 she was sent with her mother and from that day she is residing at her parental house. She has no source of income, while the revisionist owns enough land, a house at village, and a fertilizer shop. He runs weekly business shop in other village and gives loan on interest and from all resources he earns a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. In these circumstances a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was demanded as maintenance allowance. The revisionist-husband contested the case before the Trial Court and filed his objection. The marriage in between the parties is not disputed. The revisionist had refuted the allegations of cruelty and taunts in regard to the demand of dowry. It is stated that she is residing at her parental house after being enticed by them. It is further stated that he had no permanent source of income and merely by doing labour work he earns a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month. Before the Trial Court, both the parties led their evidence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2006 partly allowed the petition of the wife- 3 respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife-respondent as maintenance from the date of filing the application i.e. from 16.04.2005 by 25th of each month. It is further directed that the arrears amounting to Rs. 22,581/- which is due at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, shall be paid @ Rs. 2,000/- per month as an additional installment alongwith the amount of maintenance. In default of payment of continuous three installments, the wife-respondent will be at liberty to realize the same in a lump sum. Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, the husband-revisionist has preferred this revision. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri M.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted, at bar, that he does not intend to press the revision at this stage, therefore the revision may be dismissed as such. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 25.03.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 17.04.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.08.2008 NCM: