HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 207 of 2004 Anis Ahmad S/o Sri Makhmool Ansari, R/o village- Makhyali, P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.Smt. Gulsaana W/o Anis Ahmad D/o Nisar Ahmad, At present R/o Abadul Rahempur, P.S. Khanpur, Distt. Haridwar. 2.State of Uttarakhand. ------- Respondents Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no.2. Dated: July 22, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Haridwar in case no. 118 of 2003 Smt. Gulshana vs. Anis Ahmad, whereby the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance. It was directed that prior to the date of order the respondent-wife will receive interim maintenance @ 1,000/- per month. 2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no.2 and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-wife filed a petition against the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that marriage of the respondent was solemnized with the revisionist on 14.02.1999 according to the Muslim rituals. In the marriage; besides all the household items and utensils some precious items i.e. Chetak Scooter, refrigerator, Washing Machine, Almirah, Sewing Machine, Suitcase, Mixer-grinder, 2 Dinner set, Dressing Table, Dining Table, Gas Cylinder, Heater, Cooker, Watches, Clothes for the Mother-in-law and Father-in- law, Two sets of beds, 3 items made of gold weighing 5 Tolas, 4 items made of silver weighing 20 Tolas and Rs. 21,000/- as cash were given as dowry. But the revisionist and her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and she was subjected to cruelty for their further demand of dowry. In this regard the revisionist demanded Rs. 50,000/- and her father had also given the sum. The revisionist opened a clinic and ultimate he sold all the goods and demanded more dowry. On 09.05.2003 the revisionist and her in-laws took her at Roorkee Court forcibly after beating to her and tried to obtain her signatures in the blank papers. At the very moment her father Nisar Ahmad alongwith Shamshad and Nisar reached there. The respondent no.1 narrated them the entire untoward and thereafter after conducting her medical examination; a report was lodged against the opposite party. From that day the respondent is residing with her parental house. The wife-respondent has no source of income, while the revisionist engaged in medical field and he is a doctor and earns Rs. 5,000/- per month. Besides it he earns Rs. 1,000/- per month from agriculture. The wife- respondent prayed to grant her maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/-p.m. from her husband. The revisionist-husband contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. In the written statement, the revisionist conceded the marriage with the respondent, while refuting the allegations in regard to the demand of dowry it is stated that he never demanded dowry; Smt. Gulshana were found incapable, in the medical examination, in giving birth to any progeny and she herself was willing for children, therefore a compromise deed was executed on 09.05.2003 in between the parties. The parents of the wife were unhappy with the second marriage of revisionist, therefore they lodge a false report against him. He never ousted the respondent from his house. He always ready to give maintenance to her. Lastly, it is submitted that he is dependant 3 upon his father. Before the Trial Court, both the parties led their oral evidence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2004 allowed the application of the wife- respondent no.1 and the husband-revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance. It was directed that prior to the date of order the respondent-wife will get interim maintenance @ 1,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, the husband-revisionist has preferred this revision. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri Anuj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the dispute in between the parties has been settled cordially outside the Court and the parties have entered into a compromise. Now the matter has finally been settled. It is submitted that both the parties are ready that the case may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the revisionist and respondent no. 1. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Sanjeev Singh has submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, he does not intend to press the revision. It is submitted that as the revision has rendered infructuous, therefore the same may be dismissed as such. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 27.10.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.07.2008 NCM: