1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.106 OF 2004 Naresh Singh S/o Sri Ram Dayal R/o Village Pachoria P.S. Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar 2. Smt. Jasmanti Devi ……… Respondents Dated: February 17, 2009 None is present either on behalf of the revisionist or for respondent no.2 Sri Prabhakar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State 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 Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.05.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.11/2003, Smt. Jasmanti Devi Vs. Naresh Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/-per month to the respondent no.2 from the date of application by the 7th of each month. 2. There is no representation either on behalf of the revisionist or for respondent no.2. Sri Prabhkar Joshi, learned brief holder for the State is present. Perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that she got married with the revisionist before 7-8 years according to Hindu RITES and in the marriage parents 2 of respondent no.2 gave dowry as per their status. It was also stated that after one year of the marriage, the revisionist left her at her parental house. It was also stated that the revisionist used to commit Marpeet with her under the influence of his sister-in-law (BABHI). It was also stated that the respondent no.2 is residing at her parental house since 16.01.2001 and till today he has not paid any amount for her maintenance. It was also stated that the respondent no.2 has no source of income, she is an illiterate lady and does not know any knitting or sewing work so as to maintain herself. It was also stated that her parents are very poor and they also are unable to maintain her. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist has 35 Bighas land and also has three milking buffaloes. Besides this, he also does vegetable business. As such, he earns Rs.12,000/- per month from all sources. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and admitted the marriage with respondent no.2 but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by the respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 5. After appreciating the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, directed the revisionist as above. Against the said judgment and order dated 25.05.2004, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist 3 and due to the harassment committed by the revisionist she is compelled to live at her parental house. The revisionist has got sufficient means even though he is intentionally neglecting his wife in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance whereas respondent no.2 has got no source of income. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the court below after considering the fact that the revisionist has 35 Bigha land, has recorded the income of the revisionist to be Rs.5,000/- per month and thus has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month for respondent no.2 as maintenance allowance. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 25.05.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the aforesaid order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.02.2009 RG