IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.54 OF 2007 Girish Chandra S/o Pani Ram R/o Ward No.2, P.S. Kaladhungi District Nainital ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Leela Devi 2. Km. Mamta (minor) 3. Km. Anjali (minor) All residents of Village Haripura Harsan, P.S. Bazpur District Udham Singh Nagar .…... Respondents Dated: February 09, 2009 None is present either on behalf of the revisionist or for respondents 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 28.03.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.17/2005, Smt. Leela Devi & others Vs. Girish Chandra, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month each for maintenance of respondent nos.2 & 3, from the date of application. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 7th of each month. 2. There is no representation either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Leela Devi-respondent no.1 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist-Girish Chandra before eighteen years as per Hindu RITES and in the marriage parents of respondent no.1 gave sufficient dowry as per their status. Out of the said wedlock four children were born. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members used to demand money from respondent no.1. The father of respondent no.1 gave Rs.15,000/- to the revisionist time to time but the revisionist spent the said amount in his gambling and drinking habits. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members also tried to kill respondent no.1 but somehow she could manage to save her life. It was also stated that on 24.06.2002 at about 02:30 P:M the revisionist belabored her for the demand of money and also tried to kill by electrocuting her. Application of this incident was also given by respondent no.1 before Station Officer, Kaladhungi but after the assurance given by the revisionist not to commit Marpeet with respondent no.1 in future, the police did not take any action on her application. It was also stated that even after that behaviour of the revisionist did not change. It was also stated that after committing Marpeet with respondent no.1, the revisionist ousted her from the house for the demand of Rs.20,000/- After that the respondent no.1 took her two children and came to her parental house and since then she along with her two children is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that the revisionist does repairing work of electronic items, from where he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 is a sick lady and she does not know any work so as to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month was sought as maintenance 3 allowance for respondent no.1 and her two children against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and admitted respondent no.1 to be his legally wedded wife but denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 28.03.2007, directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.03.2007, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.1 was ousted from the house by the revisionist for the demand of money. Due to ousting by the revisionist for the demand of money she along with her two children is compelled to live at her parental house. Respondent no.1 is an ill lady and she does not know any work and is therefore unable to maintain herself and her two minor children. On the other hand, the revisionist does repairing work of electronic items and from this he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. The revisionist is intentionally neglecting respondent no.1 for the demand of money though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife-respondent no.1. Hence, after considering the work of the revisionist, the court below rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month for respondent no.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month each for respondent nos.2 & 3 as maintenance allowance. 4 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 28.03.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the aforesaid order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 05.04.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 09.02.2009 RG