IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.16 OF 2009 Rizwan S/o Late Anwar @ Anni R/o Karkhana Bazar, Near Jama Masjid, Almora, Distt.Almora ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Fatima W/o Rizwan R/o Indira Nagar Haldwani, Distt. Nainital …... Respondent Dated:February 19, 2009 Sri Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist None appeared on behalf of the respondent 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(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No.206/2006, Fatima Vs. Rizwan, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,500/- per month for the maintenance of the respondent from the date of order. 2. List has been revised. Sri Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist. None is present for the respondent though service is reported to be sufficient. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent Smt. Fatima moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Nainital stating 2 therein that she got married with the revisionist about three years before. After the marriage, the family members of the revisionist started taunting and torturing her for the demand of the dowry and she was ousted from the house. It was also stated that the revisionist is a gambler and drug addict and he often used to commit Marpeet with the respondent. It was also stated that the revisionist has a shoes’ shop from where he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated that she is a sick and illiterate lady and does not know any work so as to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the respondent against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his objection and denied the averments made in the application moved by respondent. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 17.10.2008 directed the revisionist as above. Against the said judgment and order dated 17.10.2008, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 6. Sri Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist solely argued that the court below has erred in awarding excessive amount of maintenance to the respondent against the revisionist. He further argued that the revisionist have no sufficient means of income and is not in a position to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance allowance, as directed by the court below, to the respondent. Learned counsel for the revisionist has given a statement at bar that as per the monthly income 3 of the revisionist, the revisionist is ready to pay Rs.1,800/- per month to the respondent. 7. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission given by learned counsel for the revisionist, it is expedient in the interest of justice to reduce the amount of maintenance up to Rs.1,800/- per month (instead of Rs.2,500/- per month as directed by court below). Hence, the present revision is disposed of with a direction to the revisionist that he shall pay Rs.1,800/- per month (instead of Rs.2,500/- per month as directed by court below) from the date of the order passed by the court below i.e. 17.10.2008. Interim order dated 20.01.2009 passed by this Court stands vacated. 8. It is made clear that the amount already paid by the revisionist to the respondent shall not be refunded/ recovered. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.02.2009 RG