IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.175 of 2006 Amit Bhargav … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and another … Respondents Dated: March 18, 2009 Sri B.M. Pingal, Adv. for Revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 Sri Gopal Narain, Adv. for Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 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 18.08.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.320/2003, Smt. Pooja Bhargav Vs. Amit Bhargav, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to respondent no.2-wife, from the date of application. 2. I have heard Sri B.M. Pingal, Adv. for Revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Gopal Narain, Adv. for Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent No.2- Smt. Pooja Bhargav moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 17.01.2001 as per Hindu RITES. Soon after the marriage, respondent no.2 was subjected to mental harassment by the revisionist and his family members for demand of dowry. In the month of May, 2001, the revisionist along with his wife had gone to Manali, Shimla where the behavior of revisionist towards his wife was cruel. After that the revisionist along with his wife came to Dehradun and he left her there and also directed her to come at Allahabad after the arrangement of Rs.2.00 lacs. She also averted that the revisionist also used to commit her physical and mental harassment. In the month of February, 2003, father of respondent no.2 got opened a shop of Stationery for the revisionist at Dehradun on rent. In that shop, father of respondent no.2 also arranged Rs.1.75 lacs for the father of revisionist. It was further stated that the revisionist along with his father is doing business of stationery and his total income is more than Rs.20,000/- per month. On the other hand, respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself as she does not have any source of income. With all these averments an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his objection and denied most of the averments made in the application moved by respondent no.2. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 18.08.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri B.M. Pingal, Adv. for the revisionist submitted at bar that both the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court and for this revision he does not want to press his revision and prayed that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Sri Gopal Narain, counsel for the respondent no.2 has also got no objection to this point. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 18.08.2006 passed by the court below and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order. 6. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 13.10.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.03.2009 Rajeev Dang