IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 136 OF 2005 Krishna Chandra Arya S/o Jagdish Chandra Arya, R/o village Khansyu Tok Bunga, P.O. Khansyu, Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital. ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Sri Krishna Chandra Arya, R/o village Chapad, P.O. Mauna, Teh. Kosya Kutauli, District Nainital. .………. Respondent Dated: August 14, 2008 None is present for the parties. 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 14.06.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Crl. Case no. 151/04 Smt. Sushila vs. Krishna Chandra Arya, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife- respondent and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month to the wife-respondent as maintenance, from the date of filing the application i.e. 20.09.2004. It is further directed that the arrears in lieu thereof be paid within 30 days. 2. List has been revised but there is no representation either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondent. I have perused the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent Smt. Sushila Devi moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Krishna Chandra Arya for award of maintenance to 2 the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month with the averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent was solemnized on 12.12.2003 in accordance with the Hindu rites. It is stated that soon after the marriage, the petitioner was subjected to cruelty due to demand of dowry and she was abused also. On 10th of August she was beaten by the revisionist, one Leela Devi and her father-in-law and was ousted from her in-laws’ house and since then she is residing at her parental house. The revisionist gave such medicines so that he may get aborted. It is averted that on one hand she has no means of livelihood while the revisionist is a blacksmith and is earning 4,000/- per month, besides it he owns 15-16 Bighas land and had milch animals and from all resources he earns Rs. 7,000/- per month. Refuting the averments made by the wife- respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he refuted the allegations of demand of dowry. He also rebutted the allegations of beating. It is stated that he is an unemployed and is dependant upon his father. Both the parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned Trial Court vide his judgment and order dated 14.06.2005 allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month to the wife-respondent as maintenance, from the date of filing the application i.e. 20.09.2004. It is further directed that the arrears in lieu thereof be paid within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. The order impugned has been assailed that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration, the written statement of the revisionist in which he has stated that he is ready to keep his wife with him. Although, he is an unemployed youth, therefore his m0nthly income has wrongly been fixed as Rs. 3,000/- per month. But on perusal of the impugned order shows that the 3 trial court has fully considered the petition as also the written objection of the revisionist while passing the order impugned. The trial court has reached to the conclusion that the relations in between the couple are strained. The Court below arrived to the conclusion that there is no reasonable cause to disbelieve the version of the petitioner in which she has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry, therefore she has sufficient and reasonable grounds to live separately from her husband. Further, the Court below has rightly assessed that from the labour work the income of the revisionist would be Rs. 3,000/- per month and thereby rightly directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month to his wife as maintenance. Hence, the learned court below after considering the evidence available on the record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order impugned, which does not warrant interference at this stage. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.06.2005. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 08.07.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 14.08.2008 NCM