IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2010 Mohammad Usman S/o Abdul Samad R/o Nagalia Akim, P.S. Ajim Nagar T ehsil and District Rampur, U.P. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Smt. Zareena W/o Mohd. Usman D/o Shariful Hasan R/o Nai Basti, Near Taj Masjid, Haldwani, Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the revisionist. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 210 of 2006, whereby said court has allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), and directed the husband (present revisionist) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month to his wife (present respondent). 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that, the revisionist got married to respondent on 01.12.2003, according to Muslim rites, at Haldwani. It is pleaded by the respondent before the trial court in the application moved under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., that she was ousted without any sufficient reason by the revisionist from his house in August 2006, and since then, he has neglected to maintain her. It is also pleaded that the revisionist is a contractor, who earns Rs. 15,000/- per month, while the respondent being illiterate lady, is unable to maintain herself. She had claimed Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. 4) The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, allowed the application directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month as maintenance to his wife from the date of application. 5) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is ready to keep his wife with him. From the perusal of the record it appears that there is already criminal case pending against the revisionist in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. The respondent has narrated the circumstances in which she was made to leave her husband’s house. As to the 3 economic status of the parties, the trial court has discussed the evidence, at length. 6) Lastly, it is contended that the revisionist may be allowed to pay maintenance from the date of order. 7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality in said order. 8) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons discussed above, this revision is dismissed summarily with the direction that the revisionist is allowed to pay arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. till the date of order within a period of three month from today, and thereafter he shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month w.e.f. 11.02.2010, to his wife. If the revisionist failed to pay the arrears within a period of three months at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, he shall be liable to pay maintenance as directed by the trial court from the date of application at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per month. (Stay Application No. 248 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 31, 2010. H. Negi