IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2006 1. Smt. Amrita Rani @ Babli W/o Sri Maya Ram Tomer D/o Sri Kewal Singh R/o Tyoni Tehsil –Tyoni Dehradun. 2. Master Arpit S/o Maya Ram Through his mother & natural guardian Smt. Amrita Rani @ Babli W/o Sri Maya Ram Tomer R/o Tyoni, Dehradun. ...…………. Revisionists Versus 1. Shri Maya Ram Tomer S/o Sri Kedar Singh Programmer Computer branch Through Deputy Director Transport Department, Delhi Government, Near Interstate Bus Stand Delhi. 2. State of Uttaranchal ...…………. Respondents Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2006, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Case No. 317 of 2004, 2 whereby said court has refused to grant maintenance to the revisionist No. 1 (wife), but directed the respondent No. 1 (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to his son (revisionist No. 2). 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Maya Ram got married to the revisionist No. 1 Amrita Rani on 07.01.2000, at Dehradun. A son (Master Arpit) (revisionist No. 2) born out of the wedlock on 08.12.2001. It is pleaded by the revisionists that respondent No. 1 is able to maintain his wife and son, but he has neglected to maintain them. It is also pleaded in the application moved under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), moved before the trial court that respondent No. 1 earns Rs. 25,000/- per month. 4) The respondent No. 1 contested the application before the trial court, but admitted his marriage with revisionist No. 1. He also admitted that Arpit (revisionist No. 2) is his son. However, he has denied that he neglected in maintaining the revisionists. It is pleaded by respondent No. 1 that the revisionist No. 1 lives separately from him, on her own volition. It is also pleaded by him that since his father has died, he has to maintain his brothers also. The respondent No. 1 has made counter allegation that his wife used to 3 quarrel with him on being instigated by her parents. It is also stated in the written statement that the revisionist No. 1 does not want to live with the answering respondent in Delhi, and she insists that she should be provided separate accommodation in Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. It is also pleaded by the respondent that infact it is the wife who has treated the answering respondent with cruelty. As to the income, the respondent No. 1 has pleaded before the trial court, that his salary is Rs. 9,610/- per month. 5) The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found that the wife was living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, as such, in view of provision contained in sub- section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to maintenance. However, the son (revisionist No. 2) is entitled to the maintenance from his father (respondent No. 1). The trial court further found that the carry home salary of respondent No. 1 was Rs. 14,000/- per month, and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to his son. 6) Learned counsel for the revisionists argued that the trial court has committed error of law in holding that the wife is living separately from her husband, without any sufficient cause. It is contended that it is due to the cruel behaviour on the part of respondent No. 1, the wife had to live separately. Perusal of the record 4 shows that the trial court made reconciliation efforts between the parties, and found that though the husband was ready to take his wife and child with him, but it was the wife who refused to go with him. Apart from this, it is observed by the trial court that though the wife has stated that her husband used to make allegations as to her chastity, but she failed to disclose the details of such allegations. Having gone through the papers on record, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court in coming to the conclusion that the wife was living separately on her own volition. A trial court is the best judge, particularly, in the matters of the family disputes to see to what extent the offer made by the husband to take back his wife is genuine, and to what extent the excuse taken by the wife was correct, as such court is able to see the demeanor of the parties before it. 7) On behalf of the revisionists it is pointed out that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the wife it has been stated that the husband used to drink and commit ‘MAARPEET’ with his wife and he was mentally ill, and it was not possible for the wife to live in such circumstances with her husband. However, the trial court has appreciated the evidence at length on the point and this Court in its revisional jurisdiction is not inclined to interfere with the findings unless the same is against the record. 5 8) As far as the quantum of maintenance awarded to the son (revisionist No. 2) is concerned, considering the monthly income of the husband which is Rs. 14,000/- per month, Rs. 1,500/- per month is too meager and insufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the economic status of the parties, no amount less than Rs. 2,000/- per month can be said to be a sufficient amount of maintenance, payable by the respondent No. 1 to his son (revisionist No. 2). Therefore, this revision deserves to be partly allowed with the modification that the respondent No. 1 shall pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his son (revisionist No. 2) in terms of the impugned order passed by the trial court. 9) Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. As far as the order refusing the maintenance to the revisionist No. 1 is concerned, the same stands affirmed, but the amount of maintenance directed to be paid to revisionist No. 2 by the respondent No. 1 Maya Ram, it is directed that he shall pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his son Arpit (revisionist No. 2) from the date of application. Costs easy. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 25, 2010. H. Negi