IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.141 of 2006 Pawan Bansal S/o Dinesh Bansal, R/o Vaishnav Lucky Kirana Store, Nainital Road, Lalkuan, Opp. Shiv Mandir, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital … Revisionist Versus Smt. Suman W/o Pawan Bansal & another … Respondents Dated: July 25, 2008 Sri Jagdish Bisht, Adv. holding brief of Sri Sharad Sharma, ld. counsel for the revisionist Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State/Respondent No.1 Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 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 Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Application No.187/2003, Smt. Suman & another Vs. Pawan Bansal, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has partly allowed the application moved by Revisionist No.1-Smt. Suman Bansal and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- to Respondent No.1-Smt. Suman Bansal and Rs.1,000/- per month for her son, till he attains majority, in total Rs.3,000/- per month, by 20th of each month, from the date of application i.e. 13.11.2003. The arrears were also directed to be paid by the revisionist by paying Rs.2,000/- per month to Respondent No.1-Smt. Suman and Rs.1,000/- per month to her minor son Master Om through his mother Smt. Suman, as additional installment, in addition to the amount of maintenance. It was also directed that in case of three consecutive defaults, the respondent no.1 would be at liberty to recover the amount in lump sum. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1-Smt. Suman Bansal moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court, U.S. Nagar stating therein that she was married with the revisionist on 13.12.2002 as per Hindu RITES. However, the family members of the revisionist were not satisfied with the demand of dowry and the behaviour of revisionist also became harsh and cruel. Thereafter, the parents of respondent no.1 were called by the revisionist and his family members and she was sent with her parents. Thereafter, the father of respondent no.1 gave Rs.40,000/- in dowry to the revisionist to purchase a motorcycle, but the motorcycle was not purchased. On 23.7.2003, she was left at her parental house at U.S. Nagar by the revisionist and his family members and there also, they demanded Rs.50,000/- in dowry and a motorcycle. It was further stated that she is a domestic woman and is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, revisionist is a well-qualified man and he is also having a shop in Lalkuan. The revisionist also used to earn money through tenancy. By all this profession, he used to earn Rs.25,000-30,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.10,000/- for maintenance of herself and her son-Master Om, was sought as maintenance allowance. The learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar after hearing both the parties and after perusing all the facts and circumstances of the case, vide his judgment and order dated 20.07.2006 partly allowed the application moved by Revisionist No.1-Smt. Suman Bansal and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- to Respondent No.1-Smt. Suman Bansal and Rs.1,000/- per month for her son-Om Bansal, till he attains majority, in total Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance, by the 20th of each month, from the date of application i.e. 13.11.2003. The arrears were also directed to be paid by the revisionist by paying Rs.2,000/- per month to Respondent No.1-Smt. Suman and Rs.1,000/- per month to her minor son Master Om through his mother Smt. Suman, in addition to the amount of maintenance as additional installment. It was also directed that in case of three consecutive defaults, the respondent no.1 would be at liberty to recover the amount in lump sum. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.07.2006, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. I have heard Sri Jagdish Bisht, Adv. holding brief of Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State/ Respondent Nos.2 and Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Sri Jagdish Bisht, Adv. holding brief of Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, both have given their joint consent at bar that the present revision may be disposed of with the direction to the revisionist to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to Respondent Nos.1 (Rs.2,000/- for herself and Rs.500 for her son Master Om) from the date of judgment passed by the court below i.e. 20.07.2006. In view of the above agreement between both the parties, the present revision is disposed of with a direction that the revisionist-Pawan Bansal shall pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent no.1-Smt. Suman Bansal (Rs.2,000/- for herself and Rs.500 for her Minor Son Master Om) till he attains the majority, from the date of judgment and order passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar dated 20.07.2006. The arrears, if any, shall be paid by the revisionist within a period of three months. Interim order dated 17.8.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 25, 2008 Rajeev Dang