IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 199 of 2008 Pradeep Mohan Saxena .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand &Ors. ……… Respondents July 8, 2010 None for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. VK Pal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 & 3. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 20/2006, Ekta Saxena & Anr v. Pradeep Mohan Saxena u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Judge, Family Court has allowed the said application of respondents no. 2 & 3 and awarded maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent no. 2 Ekta Saxena till the date of her marriage and Rs. 100/- per month to respondent no. 3 Shivam Saxena till the date of his attaining the age of majority to be payable by the revisionist by 8th of every month with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 is the daughter and respondent no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist. Smt. Reena got married with the revisionist on 8.11.1983 as per Hindu rites and respondents no. 2 & 3 born from the said wedlock. Since the revisionist started harassing his wife soon after the marriage, therefore, dissolution of marriage took place between them and she started living separately, but their children i.e. the respondents no. 2 & 3 were living with the revisionist. Since revisionist was not properly looking after his children and was neglecting them, therefore, respondents no. 2 & 3 came to their mother and started living with her. Subsequently, both the revisionist and Smt. Reena, mother of respondents no. 2 & 3 solemnized their second marriage. Thereafter respondents no. 2 & 3 filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC against the revisionist/father claiming maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month for each of them citing the reason that they have got no source of livelihood and they are unable to maintain themselves, whereas the revisionist being a permanent Govt. Servant was getting salary of Rs. 8000/- per month. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court allowed the aforesaid application of the respondents no. 2 & 3 and directed the revisionist to pay the maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent no. 2 Ekta Saxena till the date of her marriage and Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent no. 3 Shivam Saxena till the date of his attaining the age of majority with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application i.e. 18.1.2006. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.9.2008, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the papers available on record. None appeared for the revisionist. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 17.9.2008 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. It is an admitted case of the revisionist that he is a permanent Govt. Servant and was getting a salary of Rs. 8000-9000/- per month in the year 2007, which must have increased substantially by now. 2 Furthermore, both the revisionist and the mother of the respondents no. 2 & 3 have solemnized their second marriage and respondents no. 2 & 3 were living with their mother. Respondent no. 2 is the daughter and respondent no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist. It is not the case of the revisionist that respondents no. 2 & 3 are having some other source of income from which they can maintain themselves. In these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his children especially when he is getting good remuneration being a Govt. Servant. Furthermore, the court below has awarded the aforesaid maintenance amount to respondent no. 2 till the date of her marriage and to respondent no. 3 till the date of his attaining the age of majority. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to respondent no. 2 till the date of her marriage and monthly maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to respondent no. 3 till the date of his attaining the age of majority cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination in the view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar and it requires no interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 20/2006, Ekta Saxena v. Pradeep Mohan Saxena u/s 125 CrPC is hereby affirmed. 8. Interim order dated 16.10.2008 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance shall be paid to the respondents no. 2 & 3 within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 8.7.2010 PRABODH 3 4