IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 204 OF 2007 Smt. Prema W/o Bhajan Ram, R/o Near Taint Chauraha, Ghoranala, Bindukhatta, P.S. Lalkuan, District Nainital. ……… Revisionist Versus Bhajan Ram S/o Sri Pani Ram, R/o Shantinagar, Bindukhatta, P.S. Lalkuan, Distt. Nainital. .………. Respondent Dated: August 7, 2008 None for the revisionist, Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 10.08.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Misc. Criminal Case No.169/06, Smt. Prema vs. Bhajan Ram, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has rejected the petition preferred by the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 2. List has been revised, but there is no representation on behalf of the revisionist. Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent is present before the Court. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the revisionist Smt. Prema moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent Bhajan Ram for award of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- per month to herself and for her child with the averments that marriage in between the parties 2 was solemnized on 11.05.2004 in accordance with Hindu rites. One son was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that during the period she lived in her in-laws house, she was subjected to cruelty for less dowry and all the moments she was being commented for less dowry. In this continuous process of harassment on 09.10.2006 the respondent and his parents demanded a motorcycle and Rs. 25,000/- as dowry. When she failed to fetch the demanded items, she was ousted by the respondent from his house on her wearing clothes. From that day she is residing in her parental house. No heed was paid towards her and no maintenance was given to her. The petitioner is not a well-qualified woman and is unable to earn her livelihood while the revisionist is employed at Delhi and his salary is Rs. 3,000/- per month. Besides it he has agricultural land, he sells milk and from all resources he has monthly income of Rs. 22,000/-, out of which the revisionist can pay Rs. 5,000/- easily to the petitioner as her maintenance. The respondent, on the other hand, filed his written statement. He admitted that the revisionist is his wife but refuting the allegations made against him he stated that after 6 months’ of the marriage, he proceeded to Delhi looking for some job there and he left the revisionist alongwith his parents at Shantinagar, Bindukhatta but on 14.08.2006 the revisionist without informing to anyone went to her parental house leaving the infant child at his home. After he returned from Delhi, he also went to her parental house to bring her back, but she refused. A notice was also given to her. It is stated that he was earning a meager amount of Rs. 2,000-2,500 at Delhi by doing work in a restaurant, but after the maintenance case was filed against him he left the job and now is residing with 3 his parents and looking after his infant child. It is stated that he had no agricultural land and no source of income whatsoever. The revisionist knows knitting and sewing work and is fully capable to maintain herself. The parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 10.08.2007 rejected the petition filed by the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has stated at bar that the present matter has finally been settled outside the Court, hence there remains no cause of action left for the revisionist. It is prayed that the present revision may be dismissed in the present circumstances. 5. Even, otherwise I have perused the judgment and order dated 10.08.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 7.08.2008 NCM