IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 62 OF 2006 Ajay Rawat S/o Sri Beer Singh Rawat, R/o village Rakhwal, P.O. Bhogpur, Tehsil Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun. ……… Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Neela Rawat W/o Ajay Rawat, D/o Vikram Singh Chauhan, R/o Nambardar Farm, Shyampur, P.O. Satyanarayan, Dehradun. 2.Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, Dehradun. …….Respondent Dated: October 24, 2008 None for the revisionist, None for respondent no. 1, Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for the State. 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 the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.04.2005 passed by Addl. Judge Family Court, Rishikesh District Dehradun in case no. 23 of 2004 Smt. Neelam Rawat vs. Ajay Rawat, whereby the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife- respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month to the wife- respondent no.1 from the date of filing the application i.e. 25.09.2003 by 10th of each month. It is further directed that entire amount of the arrears shall be paid in 15 equal installments. 2. None is present either for the revisionist or on behalf of the respondent no.1. I have heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the impugned judgment and 2 order and have also gone through the material available on the record. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent wife Smt. Neelam Rawat moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Ajay Rawat for award of maintenance for herself with the averments inter-alia that marriage in between the revisionist and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 11.02.2007 in accordance with the HINDU RITES. A good dowry was given in the marriage beyond the status, but the revisionist was not satisfied with the dowry. She was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. She was physical assaulted and taunted by the family members of the revisionist except her brother in laws (DEWARS). The revisionist and his family members were persuaded by the Pradhan but for no avail. It is alleged that the revisionist has illicit relations with his BHABHI. The revisionist never cohabited with her and still she is like a virgin or unmarried girl and she is issueless. When her in-laws came to know about this fact then they started harassing her mentally; she was compelled to do all the work of the house. Maintaining this continuous practice of harassment and after giving beating to her she was once removed from the house on 11.08.2002, but afraid of their conduct, she was again taken to her matrimonial house. She was again ousted on 05.02.2003 and from that day she is living with her parents, who are not in the position to maintain her. The revisionist did not pay any heed towards her. On one hand the petitioner has prayed that she has no means of income; she is not skillful and does not know any work while on the other the revisionist owns 17 Bighas of land; he is a commission agent and earns a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to 8,000/- per month. The petitioner prayed that she may be awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance. Refuting the averments made by the wife-respondent, the revisionist filed his objection. He admitted the marriage, but he denied the 3 allegations made by the petitioner. He denied the cruelty. It is stated that he never deserted the respondent. He denied the income shown by the respondent-wife. It is further stated that the wife-respondent no.1 is self dependent; she has alternative source of income as she is an Aaganbari worker. Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the learned trial court vide her impugned judgment and order dated 13.04.2005 allowed the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.1 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month to the wife-respondent no.1 from the date of filing the application i.e. 25.09.2003 by 10th of each month. It is further directed that entire amount of the arrear shall be paid in 15 equal installments. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. None is present to press this revision, despite the list is revised. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I find that so far the marriage in between the revisionist and the petitioner is concerned the marriage is admitted. It has come in the judgment and order of the court below that after expiry of merely two months, the respondent no.1-wife was physically and mentally tortured by the revisionist and his family members. She was ignored by the revisionist. For a period of six years she kept mum and bear all the mental and physical cruelty. Therefore, the court below rightly found that the wife has sufficient reason to live separately. On due consideration, the court below has also reached to the conclusion that the alternative means of income of the wife is not proved and it cannot be said that she is self dependant. However, in regard to the source of income of the revisionist, the court below has rightly reached to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per 4 month is easily assessed as the income of a labourer, in case, the revisionist is considered to be a labourer. Besides it the revisionist owns agricultural land. The court below has reached to the conclusion that as the relations in between the revisionist and the respondent no.1 are strained hence they have blamed to each-other. It reveals that after the respondent no.1 was ousted, the revisionist did not pay any heed towards her. He neglected her to get rid of paying maintenance. The revisionist has the responsibility to maintain her wife. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the trial court has rightly directed the revisionist to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month to the wife-respondent from the date of filing the application i.e. 25.09.2003. Hence, the learned court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order impugned, which does not warrant interference at this stage. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13.04.2005. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 24.10.2008 NCM