IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.168 of 2003 Veerendra Kumar Gautam … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another … Respondents Dated: November 18, 2008 No one appears either for revisionist or for respondent no.2 Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/Respondent No.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 16.09.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case No.270 of 2002, Smt. Punam Vs. Virendra, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application for interim maintenance moved by respondent no.2-Smt. Punam and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance. 2. No one appears either for the revisionist or for respondent no.2, though service is reported to be sufficient. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Punam got married with the revisionist on 13.02.2000 as per Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock, respondent no.2 gave birth to a girl. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.2 for demanding dowry. On 23.6.2001, she was ousted from her in-laws house by the revisionist and his family members in her wearing clothes and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that she did not have any source of income in order to maintain herself and her daughter. On the other hand, the revisionist is a government employee and earns Rs.10,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was sought as interim maintenance by the respondent no.2 (Rs.2,000/- per month for herself and Rs.2,000/- per month for her daughter) against the revisionist. On that interim relief application, the learned Judge, Family Court, Hardwar after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, vide his order dated 16.9.2003 has allowed the application for interim maintenance moved by respondent no.2-Smt. Punam and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent no.2. Against the said judgment and order dated 16.9.2003, the present revision has been preferred. 4. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State raised a preliminary objection that the present revision against the order of interim maintenance being the interlocutory order, is not maintainable. 5. Apart from the above, the impugned order has been assailed by the revisionist on the ground that the court below has wrongly awarded the amount of maintenance against the revisionist. The court below in this regard has recorded a specific finding that the applicant-respondent no.2 has no source of income and she also has a daughter of 2½ years. On the other hand, the revisionist is a government employee in the C.I.S.F. and earns Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. Thus, after a perusal of the judgment of the court below as well as on the basis of the evidence available on record, the order passed by the court below is correct and justified for allowing the application for interim maintenance against the revisionist for Rs.2,000/- per month. 6. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and her daughter 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 though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for interim maintenance of respondent no.2. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 16.9.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Hardwar. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 21.10.2003 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) November 18, 2008 Rajeev Dang