IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.159 of 2006 Sunil Singh @ Sonu … Revisionist Versus Smt. Bhagwati Bakshi and another … Respondent Dated: October 17, 2008 Sri Amit Kapri, Adv. holding brief of Smt. Pushpa Joshi, counsel for revisionist Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State/Respondent No.2 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 the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Crl. Application No.234/2004, Smt. Bhagwati Vs. Sunil Singh @ Sonu, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has partly allowed the application moved by respondent No.1-Smt. Bhagwati Bakshi u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.800/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent no.1 from the date of application i.e. 1.11.2004. The arrears amounting to Rs.15,387/- (from the date of application up till the date of order) were also directed to be paid by the revisionist by paying Rs.1,000/- per month as additional monthly installment till it is finally paid along with the amount of monthly maintenance allowance. In case of default of three consecutive installments, it was directed that the respondent no.1 would be at liberty to recover the entire amount in lump sum. The amount of monthly maintenance allowance was directed to be paid by the 8th of each month. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kapri, Adv. holding brief of Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Adv. for the revisionist and Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 as well as Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent No.1- Smt. Bhagwati Bakshi got married with the revisionist on 22.3.2004 as per Hindu Rituals. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.1 for demand of dowry and also started demanding a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- in cash and she was also subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the revisionist and his family members. When the respondent no.1 complained the matter to her parents, then the parents of respondent no.1 tried to persuade the revisionist and his family members but all was in vein. On 4.7.2004, the respondent no.1 was ousted from the house in her wearing clothes by the revisionist and his family members for demand of dowry and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that she is having no source of earning and as such she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated that revisionist was doing a private job and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.1 against the revisionist. The notices were issued to the revisionist several times but the same returned back unserved with the remark of landlord of revisionist that he did not know the revisionist. After that the notice was again issued at the Moradabad address of the revisionist which did not come back, hence the service was reported to be sufficient and the matter was proceeded ex-parte. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 8.6.2005 passed the order against the revisionist as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the amount of maintenance as awarded by court below is excessive in comparison of his income. There is no force in this argument advanced by counsel for the revisionist. The respondent no.1-Smt. Bhagwati Bakshi in support of her case filed her own affidavit but she did not adduce any other evidence. In the affidavit, she had reiterated the contents of the application made by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent no.1 in her application has stated that the revisionist is doing a private job and earns Rs.6,000/- per month, but the respondent no.1 did not mention the name of the employer of the revisionist nor she produce any salary certificate of the revisionist. She also did not mention the post and the nature of job of revisionist, as such the court below rightly reached to the conclusion that the income of revisionist to be Rs.6,000/- could not be accepted. The court below also rightly recorded a finding that since the educational qualification of revisionist could not be proved, hence the court below rightly decided the income of the revisionist in comparison to a common labourer which could be exceeded maximum to Rs.18,000/- per annum or Rs.1,500/- per month. Therefore, the court below after analyzing the circumstances of the case rightly fixed the amount of maintenance allowance to be Rs.800/- month. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.1 is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting of revisionist for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.800/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 13.9.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.10.2008 Rajeev Dang