IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 143 of 2005 Anand Singh .…. Revisionist Versus Smt. Kunti Devi & Anr. ……… Respondents July 12, 2010 Mr. DCS Rawat, Advocate for the revisionist. None for the respondents. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.6.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Criminal Misc. Case No. 92/2003, Smt. Kunti Devi & Anr. v. Anand Singh u/ s 125 CrPC, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the said application of wife/respondent no. 1 and awarded her the maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month and Rs. 500/- per month to their minor daughter i.e. the respondent no. 2 till the age 18 years with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 married the revisionist on 18.10.2001 as per Hindu rites and respondent no. 2 born from the said wedlock. Soon after her marriage, respondent no. 2 was being harassed and tortured by the revisionist for dowry. Ultimately the revisionist ousted the respondent no. 2 along with her minor daughter (respondent no. 2) from his house on 14.7.2003 and since then they are living in maternal home. Thereafter she claimed maintenance from the revisionist stating that she has got no source of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herself. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital allowed the aforesaid maintenance application and directed the revisionist to pay the maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to respondent no. 2 till the age of 18 years with effect from the date making the maintenance application. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.6.2005, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the papers available on record. None appeared for the respondents. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 28.6.2005 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. Moreover, it is not the case of the revisionist that respondents are having some other source of income from which they can maintain themselves. Furthermore, it is an admitted case of the revisionist that at that time he was regularly getting Rs. 2500/- per month. In these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his wife and minor daughter. Furthermore, monthly maintenance of Rs. 750/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 500/- to respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.6.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital and it requires no interference by this Court. However, the court below has not cited any reason for awarding the aforesaid maintenance from the date of making the application. Hence, it would be just and proper to direct the revisionist to pay the aforesaid maintenance from the date of the impugned order i.e. 28.6.2005. 2 7. Resultantly, the maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to respondent no. 2 till the age of 18 years as awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Criminal Misc. Case No. 92/2003, Smt. Kunti Devi & Anr. v. Anand Singh u/s 125 CrPC vide the judgment and order dated 28.6.2005 is hereby affirmed. However, the aforesaid maintenance shall be paid to the respondents from the date of impugned judgment and order i.e. 28.6.2005. Impugned judgment and order dated 28.6.2005 is modified to the extent indicated above. Interim order dated 26.7.2005 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance shall be paid to the respondents within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.7.2010 PRABODH 3