IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.241 of 2005 Anil Kumar S/o Ramesh Singh … Revisionist Versus Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur and another … Respondents Dated: November 11, 2008 Sri S.C. Bhatia, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State/Respondent No.1 Sri H.M. Bhatia, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 18.11.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Crl. Application No.99/2004, Niraj Kumari Vs. Anil Kumar. 2. Sri S.C. Bhatt, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri H.M. Bhatia, Adv. for Respondent No.2 are present. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that Respondent No.2- Smt. Neeraj Kumari moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 30.01.2000 as per Hindu RITES. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent no.2 for demand of dowry and also started demanding a motorcycle, fridge and Rs.50,000/- in cash and she was also subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the revisionist and his family members. When the respondent no.2 complained the matter to her parents, then they tried to persuade her in-laws but all were in vain. On 18.6.2002, the revisionist and his family members physically harassed the respondent no.2, threatened to her life and then left her at her parental house in her wearing clothes. Thereafter some compromise was also arrived at in between the parties and then she came at her in-laws house. But again on 4.11.2003, revisionist and his family members committed physical harassment of respondent no.2 and then she came at her parental house and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that she is having no source of earning and as such she is unable to maintain herself and her children. On the other hand, it was stated that revisionist is the only son of his parents and his father has five acres of land in his name. Besides this, the revisionist is having a well-constructed house and also having some milking cows and he also sells the milk. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and denied the most of the averments of the application moved by respondent no.2. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 18.11.2005 partly allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 from the date of application i.e. 6.5.2004 and Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance for maintenance of son of respondent No.2 namely Bittu from his date of birth i.e. 23.8.2002. The arrears amounting to Rs.36,400/- for Respondent No.2 plus Rs.18,200/- for her son Bittu (minor) (from the date of application up till the date of order) were also directed to be paid by the revisionist by paying Rs.2,000/- per month for respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month for her son Bittu 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.2 would be at liberty to recover the entire amount in lump sum. The amount of monthly maintenance allowance was directed to be paid by the 18th of each month. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.11.2005, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri S.C. Bhatt, Adv. for the revisionist and Sri H.M. Bhatia, Adv. for respondent no.2 both have stated that both the parties have arrived at a compromise outside the Court and now the matter has finally been settled between them. Hence, Sri S.C. Bhatt, Adv. for the revisionist has submitted that he does not want to press his revision and prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise I have perused the judgment and order dated 18.11.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. 6. For the reasons as recorded above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 16.12.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 11.11.2008 RG