IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.211 of 2007 Sanjeev Kumar Sharma … Revisionist Versus Smt. Manju Sharma & Others … Respondents Dated: March 6, 2009 Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist None for the respondents HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 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 7.9.2007 passed by Family Judge, Haridwar in Case No. 95/2005, Smt. Manju Sharma v. Sanjeev Sharma, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month each to respondent no.2 and 3, in total Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance with effect from the date of application. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the entire material available on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite sufficient service. 3. Facts, in brief, are that the revisionist Sanjeev Kumar Sharma was a divorcee. Thereafter he got married the respondent no. 1 Smt. Manju Sharma on 30.6.2001 as per Hindu rituals. After the marriage when the respondent no. 1 started living with the revisionist, she came to know that her husband is alcoholic and remains drunk throughout the day. Soon after his second marriage, revisionist started living separately with his daughter from her first marriage. Revisionist also used to beat the respondent no. 1 and was not paying anything for her maintenance. Revisionist also used to threaten the respondent no.1 to go to her parental house finally. Revisionist had also ousted the respondent no. 1 many times in the night and she had to take shelter in the neighborhood. Revisionist and his mother threatened the respondent no. 1 to kill and also demanded dowry of Rs.25,000/-. Meanwhile, one son and one daughter born from the wedlock of revisionist and respondent no. 1. Revisionist never gave any money to respondent no. 1 to maintain herself and her children. On the contrary, he desired that he would live with his first wife and her daughter. Respondent no. 1 also alleged of domestic violence on the part of the revisionist and his mother. Revisionist finally ousted the respondent no.1 from his house after belabouring her and thereafter never cared about her. Revisionist holds a ministerial post in Government department. Respondent no. 1 also claimed that the revisionist monthly income is around Rs.22,000/- from his salary and other resources. With these averments, respondent no. 1 moved an application claiming maintenance amounting to Rs.7,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- for herself and Rs.2,000/- each for her two children). 4. Revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the materials on record, learned Family Judge, Haridwar vide its judgment and order dated 7.9.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 6. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the court below has erred in awarding excessive maintenance. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist. The revisionist stated before the court below that he was getting Rs.4,000/- per month after deductions. The court below did not accept this contention of the revisionist on the ground that as per the Pay Slip of the revisionist for the year 2005, he was getting Rs.5,325/- as his salary. Besides this an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was also being deducted towards G.P.F. Advance in 20 equal monthly installments and that recovery too got completed at the time of judgment. The court below inferred that the revisionist earns Rs.11-12 thousand per month from salary and further his mother also gets Rs.6,000/- per month as pension. Revisionist did not file the current pay slip before the court below and, therefore, court below rightly drawn an adverse inference against the revisionist. Thus, the learned Family Judge was right in his conclusion that non-production of present pay slip by the revisionist itself shows that the revisionist is deliberately not disclosing his actual salary. In that situation, the averment made by respondent no.1 that the revisionist gets Rs.11-12 thousand per month as salary was rightly been accepted by the court below. As such, the learned Family Judge has rightly determined the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each for maintenance of respondent nos.2 and 3. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no. 2 and 3 are unable to maintain themselves. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting them in spite of having sufficient means. 8. In view of the above-narrated facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of maintenance determined by the court below is not excessive and I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge. The impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2007 requires no interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2007 passed by Family Judge, Hardwar. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 09.10.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 06.03.2009 PRABODH