HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 09 of 2004 Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Sri Ram Charan, R/o Madkarpur, P.S. Shergarh, District Bareilly. ----Revisionist. Versus 1. Smt. Meena Devi W/o Bhanu Pratap Singh, D/o Misri Lal, R/o Ajeetpur, P.S. Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar, 2. State of Uttarakhand, Through Home Secretary, Dehradun. ------- Respondents Sri B.D. Pandey, holding brief of Sri A.D. Massey, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no. 2, Dated: July 8, 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 20.10.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Crl. Case no. 109 of 2002 (Old no. 84 of 2001) Smt. Meena Devi vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh, whereby the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife (respondent no.1), by 7th of each month, from the date of filing the application. 2. Heard Sri B.D. Pandey, holding brief of Sri A.D. Massey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent no.1-wife Smt. Meena Devi filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding maintenance against the revisionist-husband before 2 the Trial Court, with the averments that marriage in between her and the revisionist was solemnized on 9th May 1995 according to the Hindu rituals. After the marriage, the revisionist and his family members demanded one Motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- as cash, and when their demand was not fulfilled she was subjected to cruelty for their demand of dowry. On 04th July 2001 the petitioner was ousted by the revisionist from his house after gave beating to her. The petitioner had no source of income, while the revisionist earns Rs. 10,000/- per month from doing agriculture. The petitioner prayed that she may be granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the revisionist-husband. The revisionist-husband contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. Although he admitted the marriage, but he declined the allegation of cruelty as alleged by the wife-respondent no.1. It was submitted that the respondent-wife is living in her parental house on her own wishes. The parties led their evidence in order to prove their version. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 20.10.2003 allowed the application of the wife-respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist- husband to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month for the maintenance of his wife (respondent no.1), by 7th of each month, within two months from the date of production of the application. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the learned Trial Court has erred in awarding the maintenance vide his impugned judgment dated 20.10.2003. But, it has come in the judgment of the Trial Court that the respondent-wife is compelled to live separately from her husband because the revisionist-husband was in the habits of gave beating to his wife. In regard to the income, it has come in the evidence of the petitioner-wife that the revisionist owns agricultural land, thus the Court below found enough means in awarding the 3 maintenance as above. By not paying any heed towards the respondent no.1-petitioner and by avoiding maintenance to her, itself prove the negligent behaviour on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist could not show that the petitioner- wife had other sources of income, thus it is apparent that the petitioner-wife has no source of income. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application of the wife filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to his wife as maintenance from the date of filing the application, which in my opinion is reasonable and the order impugned does not warrant any interference at this stage. In these circumstances, the revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 6. The interim order dated 14.01.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 08.07.2008 NCM: