IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.113 of 2007 Rajeev A.Masih S/o Jon A. Mashih … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others … Respondents Dated: February 11, 2009 Sri J.S. Virk, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 None is present for Respondent No.3 though list has been revised HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case No.25/2006, Smt. Vimmi A. Masih Vs. Rajeev A. Masih as well as against the judgment and order dated 01.06.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case No.24/2007, Rajeev A. Masih Vs. Smt. Vimmi A. Masih. 2. I have heard Sri J.S. Virk, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent Nos.1 & 2. No one appears on behalf of respondent no.3, though list has been revised. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of case are that Respondent No.3-Smt. Vimmi A. Masih moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.3.2006 with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 28.12.2005 as per Christian rituals and her father gave dowry beyond his status. Even then her husband (revisionist) and his other family members started harassing her mentally and physically for the dowry. On 17.3.2006, parents of respondent no.3 somehow brought her back and her Stridhan was also left with the revisionist. It was also stated that the revisionist does job in Rosery Senior Secondary School, Cantt. Delhi from where he earns Rs.15,000/- per month and he also earns Rs.15,000/- per month by way of tuitions, in total he was shown to be earning Rs.30,000/- per month. With all these averments, respondent no.3 sought Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The notices were sufficiently served upon the revisionist through registered post twice and even after the publication of notice, he did not appear before the court below due to which the case proceeded against the revisionist ex parte. After considering the entire material on record, the learned Judge, Family Court, Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 allowed the application moved by respondent no.3 ex parte against the revisionist and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. The arrears were also directed to be paid within 30 days. Thereafter the revisionist moved an application u/s 126(2) of Cr.P.C. before the court below with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 and to decide the case on merits. The said application was also dismissed by the Judge, Family Court, Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 1.6.2007. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Sri J.S. Virk, Adv. for the revisionist argued that the court below has erred in allowing the application moved by the respondent no.3 ex parte and the court below further erred in rejecting the application moved by the revisionist u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. I do not find any force in this argument. In the present case, the respondent no.3 moved application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.3.2006 before the court below on which the court issued summons to the revisionist through registered post twice which were also served sufficiently upon the revisionist but he did not turn up. After that publication of notice was also made on which the revisionist moved an application on 26.9.2006 for engaging a lawyer with power but on that day also, the revisionist did not come. On that, the then Presiding Officer directed the revisionist to present in person and the date was fixed for 31.10.2006. But on 3.10.2006, the revisionist moved an application with prayer that he may be permitted to return the Stridhan but on that day also, when the revisionist did not come, then the case was directed to be listed on 31.10.2006. But on 30.10.2006, the revisionist again moved an application for exemption, but the court below directed the revisionist to appear on the date fixed. Since on 31.10.2006, no body had appeared thus, the court below rejected the application of the revisionist being no force and the case was directed to be proceeded ex parte and the date was fixed for 12.12.2006 for evidence. On 12.12.2006, ex parte evidence of Smt. Vimmi-respondent no.3 was recorded and further date was fixed for 13.12.2006 and on that date, the ex parte final order was passed. Thus, the court below after analyzing the above-said position of the case rightly recorded a finding that the revisionist was having sufficient knowledge about the lodging of the case by respondent no.3 and even the revisionist and his advocates also used to appear in the court but before the date fixed and the application was moved by the revisionist just for the purpose of returning the Stridhan and other gift items. Thus, the court below rightly came to the conclusion that the contention of the revisionist that the revisionist after giving the assurance by his advocate, had gone to Delhi was not reliable because of the reason that the revisionist himself signed on the affidavit moved by him on 2.10.2006. Even the application dated 30.10.2006 moved by the revisionist was also under his own signatures but on that day, the revisionist was not present in the court. Therefore, the court below rightly rejected the application moved by the revisionist u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. being unreliable and against the correct facts of the case. 5. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, Sri J.S. Virk, learned counsel for the revisionist solely argued that now the revisionist has left his job and he is an unemployed person and his financial position is not sound and his livelihood is being maintained by way of tuitions only. Hence, he prayed that the amount of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month as directed by the court below may very kindly be reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application. Learned counsel for the revisionist also gave an undertaking before this Court that the revisionist would continue to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.3 from the date of application. 6. The argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist seems to be genuine and appropriate too. Therefore, after considering the financial status of the revisionist and after analyzing the entire factual position fo the case, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the amount of maintenance may be reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month. 7. For the reasons as recorded above, the revision is disposed of with a direction to the revisionist that he shall pay Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.4,000/- per month as directed by the court below from the date of the application moved by respondent no.3 i.e. 25.3.2006. Interim order dated 13.06.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) February 11, 2009 Rajeev Dang