IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.242 OF 2005 Amrik Singh S/o Balveer Singh R/o Village Salbata Post Office-Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Baljeet Kaur W/o Amrik Singh R/o Village Khun Khari P.S. Nanakmatta (Udham Singh Nagar) 2. The State .…... Respondents Dated: March 27, 2009 None is present either on behalf of the revisionist or for respondent no.1 Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/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 1.12.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.242/2004, Smt. Baljeet Kaur Vs. Amrik Singh, whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the application moved by the respondent no.1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 as maintenance allowance, from the date of application i.e. 03.11.2004. The arrears amounting to Rs.19,350/- (from the date of application up till the date of order) were also directed to be paid by the revisionist by paying Rs.1,500/- per month as additional monthly installment along with the amount of monthly maintenance allowance. In case of default of three consecutive installments, it was directed that the respondent no.1 would be at liberty to recover the entire 2 amount in lump sum. The amount of monthly maintenance allowance was directed to be paid by the 1st of each month. 2. List has been revised. No one appeared either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondent no.1. Mr. M.A Khan, 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.1 moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 16.6.2003 as per Hindu RITES. It was also stated that due to habit of drinking the revisionist used to commit Marpeet with the respondent no.1 and used to spend entire income in bad habits. Soon after the marriage, the family members of the revisionist started harassing her for the demand of Rs.50,000/- cash and a motorcycle. On 28.10.2004 they again made a demand of the aforesaid items and also threatened to kill her. When she felt threat to her life then on the same day at 07:00 P:M she reached her parental house in order to save her life. Information in this regard was given to her parents by her. Before this incident also, the revisionist and his family members had ousted the respondent no.1 from the house. On 29.10.2004, when the parents and relatives of respondent no.1 went to the revisionist’s house in order to persuade the revisionist, then the revisionist misbehaved with them and ousted them from the house after abusing them. It was also stated that the respondent no.1 is educated upto V Class. She does not know any knitting or sewing work and as such she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated by respondent no.1 that the revisionist is a doctor who works in village and he also owns a shop in village. Besides this, the revisionist has 8 3 Acres land and he also does business of buffaloes. As such, he was shown to be earning Rs.20,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought against the revisionist by the respondent no.1 for maintenance of herself. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his objection and denied most of the averments made in the application. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar vide its judgment and order dated 01.12.2005 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 mainly on the ground that the court below has awarded the amount of maintenance against the revisionist without appreciating the evidence on record. The revisionist has stated in his objection that the conduct of the respondent no.1 is not good. He and his family members tried to convince the respondent no.1 but her conduct did not improve. After considering the fact that the revisionist has doubt in the character of respondent no.1, due to which she is living separately from her husband, the court below has rightly stated that even after that the respondent no.1 is entitled to get maintenance. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the respondent no.1-wife stated in her application that the revisionist earns Rs.20,000/- per month, however no reliable evidence was produced in support of that averment before the court below. Hence, in these circumstances when the income of the revisionist is not proved to be Rs.20,000/- per month, the court 4 below rightly awarded the amount of Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.1 against the revisionist. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.1 is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting by revisionist and his family members 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 though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent no.1 for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 8. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.03.2009 RG