IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.120 OF 2006 Devi Lal S/o Shyam Lal … Revisionist Versus Family Court Judge, Hardwar and two others … Respondents Dated: October 21, 2008 Sri Sanjeev Singh, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 None is present for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 12.05.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case No.257/2003, Smt. Monika Verma and another Vs. Devi Lal, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to Respondent No.2-wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to Respondent No.3-daughter, till she attains majority, in total Rs.2,500/- per month, as maintenance allowance from the date of application. 2. Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 are present. None is present for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that on 28.4.2003, Respondent No.2-Smt. Monika Verma moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 5.3.2002 according to Hindu RITES and her parents gave dowry beyond their status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they started harassing respondent no.2 due to demand of dowry and started demanding Rs.5.00 lacs in cash. It was also stated that on 25.6.2002, the revisionist and his family members ousted the respondent no.2 due to dowry and directed her to come back only if she would be get Rs.5.00 lacs in cash. She was also threatened that if she would come back without dowry, then she would be set at fire. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members did not pay any heed towards her nor they paid anything towards maintenance. It was also stated that the revisionist is working as Junior Engineer in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and his monthly salary is Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the respondent no.2 did not do any work nor she had any source of income and it is the legal responsibility of the revisionist to maintain his wife and daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.7,000/- was sought as interim maintenance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement to the application moved by respondent no.2 and denied the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 12.05.2006 directed as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the instant case, both the parties have settled the dispute outside the court and for this reason he does not want to press the revision, hence he prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 12.05.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 20.07.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 21.10.2008 Rajeev Dang