IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.20 OF 2008 Balvinder Singh S/o Sri Pyara Singh R/o 40 Guru Road, Patel Nagar District-Dehradun ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Harjeet Kaur 3. Km. Gurprit Kaur 4. Ishpal singh …... Respondents Dated: November 26, 2008 Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4. 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 15.12.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.433/06, Smt. Harjeet Kaur and others Vs. Balvinder, whereby the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2-Smt. Harjeet Kaur ex-parte and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 from the date of application. 2. I have heard Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State as well as Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt.Harjeet Kaur moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun with the averments that the respondent no.2 got married with the revisionist on 27.1.1985 at Dehradun as per Hindu RITES. It was stated that out of the said wedlock respondent nos.3 & 4 were born. It was also stated that after five years of the marriage behaviour of the revisionist changed and the revisionist started used to come late at night in drunken condition and then used to do unusual things. It was also stated that on 6.10.2006, the revisionist threatened respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 to life and therefore they left the house in their wearing clothes and since then they are living separately from the revisionist. It was also stated that the respondent no.2 is living in a rented house along with her children and she has no source of income. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist does work of building decoration and from there he earns Rs.20,000/- per month but he spends all the money in gambling. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 was sought as maintenance against the revisionist. 4. Since the revisionist did not appear before the court below on 31.8.2007 and also not filed the written statement, therefore, the court below allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 ex-parte against the revisionist and directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 from the date of application. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.12.2007, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 3 5. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the case may be decided in terms of the compromise and they only prayed that the amount of maintenance as directed by the court below may be directed to be paid by the revisionist from the date of order passed by the court below and not from the date of application. Prayer made is innocuous in nature and deserves to be accepted. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to award the amount of maintenance from the date of order passed by the court below, i.e., 15.12.2007. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the case, it is proved that respondent no.2-Smt. Harjeet Kaur is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she along with her children- respondent nos.3 & 4 are compelled to live separately. On the other hand, the revisionist earns Rs.20,000/- per month from the work of building decoration. Even after that he is intentionally neglecting respondent no.2 in order to get rid of from the amount of maintenance though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife- respondent no.2. Hence, the court below rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is modified to the extent that the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 shall be entitled to get the maintenance as awarded by the court below from the date of order i.e. 15.12.2007 and not from the date of application. Interim order dated 29.1.2008 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.11.2008 RG