IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.94 of 2008 Smt. Amita … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Dated: October 29, 2010 Sri DCS Rawat, Adv. for the revisionist Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State Sri S.S. Chauhan, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. The revisionist has preferred the present revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.41/2005, Smt. Amita Vs. Jagmohan, dismissing the application moved by the revisionist-wife U/s 125 Cr.P.C.. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available in the file. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that revisionist moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she was married with the respondent no.2 on 28.1.04 and her parents gave sufficient dowry however soon after the marriage, the respondent no.2 and his parents started committing her harassment for bringing more dowry and ultimately on 3.3.04 she was left at her parental house by the respondent no.2 in her worn clothes. The respondent was shown to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month and he also earns Rs.7,000/- per month from milk business and his total income was 10,000/- per month, while she is illiterate lady and unable to maintain herself and hence Rs.5,000/- per month was demanded as maintenance allowance. The respondent no.2 appeared before the court below and filed his detailed written statement 2 thereby denying the averments made in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and stated that the revisionist herself is not desirous to stay with him. Vide judgment and order dated 7.5.08, the court below rejected the application of the revisionist u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Hence this revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the court below has erred in law while rejecting the application of the revisionist. On the contrary, the counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that the revisionist herself is not desirous to stay with him. He further submitted that the revisionist in her cross-examination herself stated that she does not want to stay with her husband and she intends to get divorce. Even before the trial court too, this fact came to knowledge that she did not want to stay with the revisionist in the village. Hence these facts prove that she is not at all interested to stay with her husband in the village and she wants to get divorced. The respondent no.2 also stated before the court below that the revisionist wanted him to reside in Dehradun or at nearby place by selling his house and land and also to leave his family members. Apart from that, so far as the income of the respondent no.2 is concerned, the revisionist was completely unsuccessful in proving the income of the revisionist from any source. As such, the trial court after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case rejected the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and I find that the judgment and order is perfectly justified and as per law. 5. Even otherwise, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) October 29, 2010 Rajeev Dang