IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.101 OF 2006 Jaswant Singh S/o Sri Darshan Singh R/o Village Kanankpur P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …... Respondents Dated: November 12, 2008 Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State None is present on behalf of respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred 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 30.3.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Application No.221/2004, Smt. Soma Kaur and another Vs. Jaswant Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.800/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.3 from the date of application, i.e., 13.10.2004. It was also directed that the arrears shall be paid by the revisionist by paying additional installment of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.800/- per month to respondent no.3. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 30th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. None is present on behalf of 2 respondent no.2 though service is reported to be sufficient. Perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 Smt. Soma Kaur moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 11.12.1998 as per Hindu RITES. It was also stated that soon after the marriage the revisionist and his family members started harassing the respondent no.2 for the dowry and also demanded Rs.25,000/- in cash and one motorcycle. On her refusal, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the revisionist and his family members. It was also stated that before two years of moving of the application, the revisionist and his family members again demanded Rs.25,000/- in cash and motorcycle and in her pregnancy she was ousted by the revisionist in her wearing clothes and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that after arriving at her parental house she gave birth to a son-respondent no.3 (Master Dimpal) and the information to this effect was also sent to the revisionist by respondent no.2. However, nobody has come to see the respondent no.2 and respondent no.3. It was also stated that she is having no source of income and therefore she is totally unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was also stated that the revisionist is having 15 acres of land in Kashipur, a tractor and he also does some work at Mandi. Besides this, he was also shown to be doing milk business. As such it was stated that the revisionist earns Rs.15,000/- per month from all sources. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.3,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.3 was sought as maintenance against the revisionist. The revisionist also 3 appeared before the court below and also filed his written statement and denied most of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating entire material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 30.3.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.3.2006, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist solely argued that he does not want to challenge the order passed by the court below on the ground of quantum. He only prayed that the amount of maintenance as directed by the court below may be directed to be paid by the revisionist from the date of order passed by the court below and not from the date of application. Prayer made is innocuous in nature and deserves to be accepted. Even after perusal of the judgment and order passed by the court below it is clear that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the judgment for awarding the amount of maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to award the amount of maintenance from the date of order passed by the court below, i.e., 30.3.2006. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the case, it is proved that respondent no.2-Smt. Soma Kaur is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she along with her son-respondent no.3 (Master Dimple) is compelled to live at her parental house due to ousting by the revisionist for demand of dowry and the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her for the demand of dowry. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.3.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar is 4 modified to the extent that the respondent nos.2 and 3 shall be entitled to get the maintenance as awarded by the court below from the date of order i.e. 30.3.2006 and not from the date of application. Interim order dated 22.6.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.11.2008 RG