IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 128 of 2009 Vikram Pratap S/o Shri Kishore Kumar R/o Preet Nagar, Barara District Ambala (Harayana) .……….Applicant Versus 1. Smt. Geeta, W/o Shri Vikram Pratap R/o 27, Shiv Colony, Patel Nagar Dehradun. 2. Baby Manya (minor) D/o Shri Vikram Pratap R/o 27, Shiv Colony, Patel Nagar Dehradun, through her mother and Natural guardian Smt. Geeta above. …………Respondents Shri Pawan Mishra, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate and Shri V.P.Bahuguna, Advocate, present for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.06.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, V, 2 Dehradun, in criminal appeal no. 19 of 2009, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 03.02.2009, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun, in Miscellaneous Case No. 32 of 2008, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month the respondent no. 1 Geeta (wife) and respondent no. 2 Baby Manya (minor daughter). 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondents have not filed the affidavit as required under section 23(2) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as such, the impugned orders suffer no illegality in awarding the maintenance. The original record has been summoned by this Court, which shows that the affidavit as required under section 23 (2) of the Act, was very much on record before the Magistrate passed the order. 4. It is also pleaded on behalf of the revisionist that report of the Protection Officer is not in form 1 as required under Rule 5 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Rules 2006. Even, though, report of the Protection Officer not in form 1, there 3 appears no material injustice done by the Magistrate, in awarding maintenance to the wife and daughter of the revisionist. 5. Both the courts below have applied their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and they have concurred in their view. 6. For the reasons as discussed above, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through papers on record, this Court does not find any force in this revision. The same is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J) Dt. 17.06.2010 Parul