IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 86 OF 2006 Suresh Chandra ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. .……….Respondents Dated: October 21 , 2008 None for the revisionist. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been directed against the order dated 21.11.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun by which the petition filed by the wife-respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner and her two children from the date of application i.e. from 05.09.2002 by 10th of each month. It is further directed to pay the arrears @ 1,000/- per month alongwith the amount of maintenance. In the revision the order dated 08.06.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in criminal case no. 404 of 2003 Suresh Chandra vs. Meena Devi is also under challenge by which the court below rejected the review application of the revisionist Suresh Chand seeking review of the order dated 21.11.2003 passed in case no. 671/02 filed by the wife-respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. directing the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the petitioner-Smt. Meena Devi and her children. 2. List has been revised. None is present either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondent no.2. I have heard Sri M.A. 2 Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 3. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the marriage in between the parties was an agreement; the wife- respondent no. 2 could not prove her case regarding the negligence by the revisionist; the wife had left her matrimonial house on her own wishes and lastly that the order of maintenance should be from the date of order and not from the date of application. None is present to press the revision. I have gone through the impugned orders dated 21.11.2003 as also the order dated 08.06.2005 and perused the record. Vide order dated 21.11.2003, the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife- respondent no.2 was allowed and the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner and her two children from the date of application i.e. from 05.09.2002 by 10th of each month. It is further directed to pay the arrears @ 1,000/- per month alongwith the amount of maintenance, which is correct and justified as per the law and based on the evidence available on the record therefore, it does not warrant interference from this Court. Vide order dated 08.06.2005 the court below rejected the review application of the revisionist Suresh Chand seeking review of the order dated 21.11.2003 passed in case no. 671/02 filed by the wife-respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. directing the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the petitioner-Smt. Meena Devi and her children. In my opinion, this order also justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. On perusal of the impugned orders dated 21.11.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun as also the order dated 08.06.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the 3 impugned orders. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 21.10.2008 NCM: