IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 133 of 2010 Rakesh Mistri .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ……… Respondents July 5, 2010 Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no. 1. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 34/2008, Smt. Sapna v. Rakesh Mistri u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Judge, Family Court has allowed the application of Smt. Sapna/respondent no. 2 and awarded her maintenance of Rs. 1300/- per month to be payable by the revisionist by 7th of every month with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the revisionist- husband and wife-respondent no. 2 got married to each other on 13.5.2007 as per Hindu rites. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started to harass his wife-respondent no. 2 and also beaten her on several occasions and ultimately she was ousted from the house of her in-laws on 23.12.2007 and since then she has been residing in her maternal house. Thereafter wife- respondent no. 2 Smt. Sapna filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC against the revisionist Rakesh Mistri claiming maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month for herself citing the reason that she has got no source of livelihood and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist is engaged in tailoring and has also got agricultural land. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent no. 2 and directed the revisionist to pay the maintenance of Rs. 1300/- per month to his wife/respondent no. 2 with effect from the date of making the maintenance application. He further directed that the aforesaid maintenance amount shall be paid by 7th of every month. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.5.2010, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 28.5.2010 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. The court below has rightly assumed that a healthy young man can easily earn Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month by doing the labour work and respondent no. 2 who is living separately from her husband has got no source of livelihood and accordingly, the maintenance amount of Rs. 1300/- was awarded. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar and it requires no interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine. Judgment and order dated 28.5.2010 2 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 34/2008, Smt. Sapna v. Rakesh Mistri u/s 125 CrPC is hereby affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.7.2010 PRABODH 3