IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.172 OF 2005 Smt. Aradhana Verma W/o Subhash Chandra Verma R/o 150-Panditwari, Phase-II Dehradun ……… Revisionist Versus Subhash Chandra Verma …... Respondent Dated: November 20, 2008 Sri Anant Kumar Aggarwal, Adv. holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist None is present for the respondent. 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 22.9.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Misc. Matrimonial Case No.22/2002, Smt. Aradhana Verma & another Vs. S.C. Verma, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the revisionist u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,800/- per month for maintenance of the revisionist from the date of application i.e.13.11.2000, by the 10th of each month. It was also directed that the interim maintenance shall be paid within one month. 2. I have heard Sri Anant Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire material available on record. None is present for the respondent. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the revisionist moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the respondent on 23.5.1983 as per Hindu RITES and out of this wedlock one son was born on 13.3.1984. Soon after the marriage the respondent started harassing the revisionist. It was also stated that the respondent used to commit Marpeet with the revisionist. It was also stated that the respondent is posted as Superintendent Geophysicist in O.N.G.C. from where he earns Rs.26,000/- per month as salary. It was also stated that since six years, before the date of moving the application, the respondent has not paid any amount for maintenance of the revisionist. It was further stated that the revisionist is maintaining herself and her son with great difficulty and she and her son is entirely dependant upon her parents. It was also stated that the respondent has not given any money for the education of the son of revisionist. It was also stated that the revisionist was compelled to live at her parental house and her entire Stridhan was kept by the respondent. With all these averments, an application for maintenance was filed by the revisionist against the respondent. The respondent also filed his written statement before the court below and denied most of the allegations made in the application moved by the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 22.9.2003 directed the respondent as above. Against the said judgment and order dated 22.9.2003, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri Anant Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir 3 Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court. Due to this reason, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he does not want to press the revision and prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 22.9.2003 passed by the trial court and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the said judgment and order. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 20.11.2008 RG