IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.15 OF 2007 Navab s/o Noor Mohammad R/o Village Ladpur Khurd, Tehsil Laksari, Haridwar ……… Revisionist Versus Additional Family Judge and another ..…... Respondents Dated: July 14, 2010 None is present for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for respondent no.1 Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate i/b Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2 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 2.1.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.35 of 2005, whereby the learned Addl. Judge has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2/wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.800/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the case i.e. 29.3.2005. It was also directed that the arrears shall be paid by the revisionist to the respondent no.2 per month in ten equal installments. 2. List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for respondent no.1 as well as Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Husanjahan (respondent no.2) moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist with the averments that she got married with the revisionist in the year 2003 as per Muslim 2 customs. In the marriage, her father gave dowry beyond his status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they started torturing her for the demand of dowry after the marriage. Respondent no.2 continued to bear the harassment but the revisionist and his family members then also started beating her for dowry. It is further alleged that when her father and brother used to visit her matrimonial house to meet her, she was not allowed to meet them. On 1.12.2004, the revisionist committed Marpeet with her and ousted her from the house for the demand of dowry. Since then she is residing at her parental house and the revisionist has not paid any heed towards her. It is further stated that the revisionist has a grocery shop and is also having a dairy and from all these sources he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent no.2 is having no source of income. She does not know sewing or knitting work and is therefore unable to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month for maintenance of herself was sought by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee vide its judgment and order dated 2.1.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. The present revision has been assailed on the ground that the amount of maintenance as awarded by the court below against the revisionist is excessive. Respondent 3 no.2/wife has stated in her application that revisionist has a grocery shop and is also running a dairy and from all these sources he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no evidence was produced by the respondent no.2 in support of that averment before the court below. Contrary to this, the revisionist has stated in his statement that he does labour work. Hence, in these circumstances, when the income of the revisionist is not proved to be Rs.15,000/- per month, the court below rightly awarded the amount of Rs.800/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is unable to maintain herself 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. Thus, I am of he view that the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.800/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2. 8. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 2.1.2007 passed by Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 14, 2010 RG