IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Application No. 139 / 2010 In Crl. Misc. Application No. 1027 of 2009 Nandan Singh Rawat S/o Deewan Singh Udyan Bhavan, Bans Gali, A lmora. ...…………. Petitioner / applicant Versus Hema Rawat D/o Dan Singh Dobal Village Pabhyan, Post Ganai Gangoli, District Pithoragarh. ...…………. Respondent Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner / applicant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Restoration Application MCRC No. 139 of 2010, for restoration of Criminal Misc. Application (C- 482) No. 1027 of 2009, which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 17.02.2010. 2 2) Heard, and perused the affidavit filed with the application. 3) In view of the principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Limited and others Vs. Union of India and another, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1971, the restoration application is allowed, on the condition that the petitioner shall argue the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), today itself. 4) The application is allowed on above condition, and Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 1027 of 2009, is restored to its original number. 5) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the petition. 6) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.11.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora, in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2009, whereby said court has partly allowed the revision and reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 2,500/- per month payable to the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 7) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner got married to respondent in the year 2006. It is pleaded by respondent in her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, that the respondent was unable to maintain herself, and the 3 petitioner (husband) is a contractor, and has means to pay the maintenance. She further pleaded that the petitioner made allegations against the respondent as to her chastity, and ousted her from her matrimonial house. She claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance from the present petitioner. The trial court vide its order dated 31.07.2009, passed on Criminal Misc. Case No. 42 of 2009, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the present respondent Hema Rawat (wife). The petitioner Nandan Singh Rawat filed a Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2009, before the Sessions Judge, Almora, challenging the order passed by the Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the revision and reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 2,500/- per month. 8) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though, petitioner was a contractor, but at present he has no contracts at his hands, and as such, he has no means to pay the maintenance awarded by the revisional court. 9) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders, this Court finds that factual aspects of the matter has been considered at length by both the courts below. This Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot exercise appellate powers to hold that conclusions, which are based on evidence on record, are erroneous. 4 10) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, passed by the revisional court, and as such, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 23, 2010. H. Negi 5