IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 137 of 2007 Pawan Sharma S/o Shri Pooran Chandra Sharma R/o A –12, New Naglapadi (Opposite Tulsi Talkies) N ew Agra (U.P.). ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Vineeta D/o Shri Mishranand Badola R/o Village Shyampur, P.O. Ambiwala, P.S. Basant Vihar, District Dehradun. 3. Master Kartike Sharma S/o Shri Pawan Sharma R/o Village Shyampur, P.O. Ambiwala, P.S. Basant Vihar, District Dehradun through his mother Smt. Vineeta (respn. No. 2 above). ...…………. Respondents Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Along with Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2007 1. Smt. Vinita W/o Pawan Sharma D/o Shri Mishranand Badola 2. Master Kartik Sharma S/o Pawan Sharma Through his mother natural guardian revisionist No. 1 2 R/o Village Shyampur, P.O. Ambiwala, P.S. Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun. ...…………. Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Pawan Sharma S/o Puran Chandra Sharma R/o A –12, New Naglapadi Agra –5, P.S. New Agra (U.P.). ...…………. Respondents Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. These two revisions are directed against the same judgment and order dated 01.06.2007, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Case No. 08 of 2005, whereby said court has allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) filed by Smt. Vinita (wife) and Master Kartikay (son), and directed Pawan Sharma (opposite party) to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife, and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the son. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3 3) Brief facts of the case are that, Smt. Vinita got married to Sri Pawan Sharma on 02.12.2001, at Dehradun. Out of the wedlock a son Kartikay was born on 17.10.2003. It is pleaded by Vinita and her son Kartikay that Pawan Sharma has neglected them in maintaining. It is also pleaded that Vinita was forced to leave her husband’s house after she was harassed for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is also pleaded in the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court that Sri Pawan Sharma earns Rs. 40 –50 thousand per month, and the applicant (Vinita) and her son (who lives with her), have no means to maintain themselves. With these pleadings Rs. 10,000/- per month for applicant No. 1 (Vinita) and Rs. 10,000/- per month for son Kartikay was claimed as maintenance by them from Pawan Sharma. 4) Sri Pawan Sharma contested said application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court. However, he admitted that he was married to Smt. Vinita. It is also admitted that son Kartikay born out of the wedlock. It is further pleaded by him that Vinita has filed a false criminal case relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, proceedings of which are stayed from the High Court. It is denied by him that Vinita is unable to maintain herself. He has further 4 stated that he is earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, which he earns by working as a Salesman in a medical store in Agra. It is also pleaded that Vinita is living separately from Pawan Sharma (husband) without any sufficient reason. 5) The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties found that there are sufficient reasons for living separately for the wife (Vinita). The trial court further found that Pawan Sharma earns Rs. 5,000/- per month. It further found that the applicants Vinita and Kartikay are unable to maintain themselves. With these findings, the trial court directed Pawan Sharma to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife, and Rs 1,000/- per month to the son. The husband has filed Revision No. 137 of 2007, challenging the findings recorded by the trial court. On the other hand, Vinita and Kartikay have challenged the same order for enhancement of the maintenance, by filing Revision No. 126 of 2007, before this Court. 6) Learned counsel for Pawan Sharma (husband) argued that earning of Pawan Sharma is not more than Rs. 2,000/- per month, which he earns by working as Salesman in a medical store, and as such, he is unable to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife, and Rs. 1,000/- per month to his son. As against this, learned counsel for Vinita (wife) contended that even in respect of unskilled worker it is 5 presumed that he earns Rs. 36,000/- per annum (Rs. 3,000/- per month). It is contended that the husband has not filed any certificate to support his case that he earns only Rs. 2,000/- per month, and he has concealed his income. The trial court has found that the husband was doing business of clothes till 2002. After the same is closed, now he his working in a medical store. The finding assessing the income of the husband at Rs. 5,000/- per month, recorded by the trial court is based on evidence on record, after considering the status of the parties, and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. As far as the finding relating to sufficiency of reason to live separately on the part of the wife is concerned, the trial court has rightly taken into consideration the fact that since the wife has complained to the police that she was harassed for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, and after investigation the husband is facing trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., as such, it cannot be said that the wife is living separately without any sufficient reason. 7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, considering the economic status of the parties, this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed no error of law in directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife, and Rs. 1,000/- per month to his son. As far as the 6 enhancement of the maintenance is concerned, the wife could not show from the evidence on record that the husband earns more than Rs. 5,000/- per month, and as such, there is no scope of enhancement either. 8) In the above circumstances, both the revisions are liable to be dismissed. The same are dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 30, 2010. H. Negi 7