IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.198 of 2006 Kuldeep Singh … Revisionist Versus Smt. Yasoda Devi and another … Respondents Dated: March 24, 2009 Sri L.K. Tewari, Adv. for the revisionist Km. Geeta Parihar, Adv. for respondent no.1 Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/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 Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.304 of 2005, Smt. Yasoda Devi Vs. Kuldeep Singh, whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent No.1. Heard Sri L.K. Tiwari, Adv. for the revisionist, Km. Geeta Parihar, Adv. for Respondent No.1, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available in file. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1- Smt. Yasoda Devi moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 05.05.1996 as per Hindu RITES and out of the said wedlock, two sons Vikas Singh and Aakash Singh were born. It was further averted that revisionist and his family members started her mental harassment for getting less dowry. It was also stated that the behavior of the revisionist towards the respondent no.1 also became cruel day by day and ultimately he left her at her parental house. Thereafter she sent several messages to the revisionist to take her back but he did not come. It was also stated that she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, revisionist earns Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. As such an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.1 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 26.10.2006 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.1. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. Sri L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the court below has wrongly awarded maintenance to respondent no.1 against the revisionist. There is no force in this argument. The court below in this regard has recorded a finding that the revisionist himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he gets Rs.7,500 to Rs.8,000/- per month as salary. The revisionist also stated that the respondent no.1 is a 10th class passed lady and she takes tuition from where she gets Rs.800/- per month. However, the revisionist did not produce any evidence to this effect. As such, the court below after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent no.1 as maintenance. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent no.1 is unable to maintain herself and due to the reason that she was ousted by the 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 her. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 17.11.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 24, 2009 Rajeev Dang