IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2010 Taufiq-Ur-Rehman alias Pappu S/o Abdul Rehman R/o Near Gopal Mandir Nai Basti, Haldwani District Nainital. ………Revisionist. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home Dehradun. 2. Smt. Shama Parveen W/o Tuafiq-Ur-Rehman alias Pappu 3. Baby Shiri (Minor) D/o Taufiq-Ur-Rehman alias Pappur Through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Shama Parveen Both R/o Line No. 13, Azad Nagar Haldwani, District Nainital. …………….Respondents. Shri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the revisionist. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital (Camp Haldwani), in criminal case No. 157 of 2007, Smt. Shama Parveen and another Vs. Taufiq-Ur-Rehman. 2. Heard. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist admittedly got married to respondent No. 2- Shama Parveen, some five years before filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2007. Out of the wedlock, two children (one son- 2 Akib and one daughter Shiri) were born. Son is living with the father and daughter is living with the mother. The allegations of the wife was that after murder of her brother, the relation between the husband (revisionist) and the wife (respondent No. 2) got soured and respondent No. 2 started living with her daughter in her parental house. It was pleaded by respondent No. 2 that she was forced to leave her husband’s house and she is unable to maintain herself. She further pleaded that revisionist has an income of Rs. 40,000/- per month from business. She claimed Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and Rs. 3,000/- for her daughter –Shiri (respondent No. 3). The present revisionist contested the petition, moved by his wife but he admitted the marriage between the parties and that the two children were born out of the wedlock. He further pleaded in his written statement before the trial court that respondent No. 2 has experience of tailoring clothes and can earn by doing stitching and embroidery work. He further pleaded that his business is a seasonal business. He further pleaded that he is ready to keep his wife and daughter with him. The trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties, found that the revisionist (husband) has neglected to maintain his wife and the daughter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court directed vide impugned order dated 20.02.2010, that the husband Taufiq-Ur-Rehman alias Pappu (present revisionist) shall pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as 3 maintenance to his wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to his minor daughter. 4. Having gone through the entire judgment and order, passed by the trial court, and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the order, which requires interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order appears to be well reasoned and direction appears to be based on evidence on record. 5. For the reasons, as discussed above, this revision is dismissed summarily. (Stay application No. 166 of 2010, stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:09.03.2010 Sweta