IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.140 OF 2004 Gagan Mehndiratta ……… Revisionist Versus Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh & another. ……… Respondents. Dated: April 07, 2008 None is present for the revisionist. Sri Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State/respondent no.1. 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 of Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the orders dated 2.08.2004 passed by Additional Family Judge, Family Court Rishikesh and also against the order dated 13.06.2003 passed by Family Judge, Dehradun. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Shweta Mehandiratta moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 8.07.2002 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun with the averments that she was married to the revisionist on 26.04.2001 according to the Hindu rituals. The parents of respondent no.2 gave dowry as per their status but the parents of the revisionist were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of respondent no.2. After some days, the revisionist and his parents demanded Rs.50,000/- cash and a Motor Cycle in dowry. On 12.03.2002, the parents of the revisionist gave a telephone call to the parents of respondent no.2 by which the father of respondent no.2 was directed to come with Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle or to take his daughter with him. Thereafter, the father of respondent no.2 gave Rs.20,000/- to the father of revisionist. It was also stated that on 24.03.2002 revisionist and his parents beaten respondent no.2. It was also stated that on 25.03.2002 the parents of revisionist left respondent no.2 on her parents’ house and asked to come when amount of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle would be arranged. It was also averted that on 26.03.2002 she had delivered a child in Rishikesh Hospital. It was further stated that respondent no.2 is a housewife and is having no source of income and that she is unable to maintain herself. It was further averted that the revisionist was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, as he is a supplier of plastic carry bags. Thereafter, on 6.05.2003, Respondent No.2 again moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Judge, Dehradun vide his order dated 13.6.2003 awarded Rs.1,500/- per month against the revisionist as interim maintenance from 1.4.2003. It was further directed that the amount due till 31.5.2003 shall be paid by the revisionist up till 21.7.2003 and the future amount of interim maintenance shall be paid by the 10th of each month. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an application before the Judge, Family Court praying therein that he is unable to pay the amount of Rs.1,500/- per month as he is not having sufficient income to pay the amount of interim maintenance and therefore, it was prayed that the amount of interim maintenance may be reduced. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material available on record, the learned Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh vide his order dated 2.8.2004 rejected the application moved by the revisionist. Against the said orders dated 2.8.2004 and 13.6.2003, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. List has been revised, however no one appears on behalf of the revisionist. I have perused the entire material available on record and also perused the orders dated 2.08.2004 and 13.06.2003 passed by court below. 5. There is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by court below as the Respondent No.2 in her application has clearly stated that income of the revisionist is Rs.10,000/- per month from the business of plastic carry bags. The learned Family Judge, Dehradun has rightly fixed the amount of interim maintenance as Rs.1,500/- per month on the basis of the evidence available on record. The application of the revisionist for reducing the amount of maintenance has also been rightly rejected by learned Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh. As such, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness & impropriety in the said orders dated 13.6.2003 and 2.8.2004 passed by court below. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 18.11.2004 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) Rajeev Dang