IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2009 1. Menka, W/o Shri Arvind Kumar D/o Shri Harpal Singh At present R/o R-65 Industrial Area Bahadrabad P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. 2. Km. Aarti D/o Shri Arvind Kumar Age about 5 years through natural mother and guardian Smt. Menka W/o Shri Arvind Kumar D/o Shri Harpal Singh At present R/o R-65 Industrial Area Bahadrabad P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. .……….Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand. 2. Shri Arvind Kumar, S/o Shri Palu R/o Ghas Mandi, P.S. Jwalapur Tehsil and District Haridwar. …………Respondents Shri Tapan Singh, Advocate, present for the revisionists. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the state. Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2009, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in case no. 72 of 2006, whereby said court has rejected the prayer of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., of the wife (revisionist no. 1) but awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the minor daughter Km. Aarti (revisionist no.2). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist no. 1 Menka got married to respondent no. 2 Arvind Kumar on 16.06.2002. Two children namely Priyanshu and Aarti born out of the wed-lock. It is alleged by the revisionists in their application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., that they are unable to maintain themselves and the respondent Arvind Kumar is neglecting to maintain them. It is also pleaded in their application that the respondent no. 2 Arvind Kumar is a salesman in a shop and earns Rs. 3,600/- per month. The revisionists had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 4. The respondent no. 2 contested the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the trial court, and filed his written statement in which he admitted the marriage with the revisionist no. 1. He also admitted that the two children namely Priyanshu and Aarti were born out of the wed-lock. However, rest of the allegations were denied by the respondent no. 2. He pleaded that he (respondent no. 2) is earning Rs. 1800/- only per month while his wife is able to maintain herself. 5. The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and held that since the applicant (revisionist no. 1) is in service and earns more than the respondent (husband) as such, she is not entitled to the maintenance from him. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the trial court has erred in law in rejecting the application of the revisionist no. 1 for maintenance. It is also pleaded that amount of Rs. 500/-awarded to the minor daughter is too meagre. 7. For the purposes of claiming maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., the wife is claiming maintenance is required to prove that she is unable to maintain herself and her husband has sufficient means to pay but still he neglects or refuses to maintain her. In the present case there is categorical finding recorded by the trial court that the husband (respondent no. 2) is earning Rs. 1800/- per month by doing job in a shop. The trial court has further found that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself as she was also in job. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that trial court has erred in law in refusing the maintenance to the wife (revisionist no. 1). So far as the quantum of maintenance awarded to revisionist no. 2 (minor daughter) is concerned, in view of the income of the respondent no. 2 (which is said to be Rs. 1800/- per month) awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to minor daughter cannot be said to be unreasonable. It is also pertinent to mention here that from the record it is clear that one of the children namely Priyanshu (son) is living with his father (respondent no. 2). As such, out of the Rs. 1800/- the respondent no. 2 has to pay Rs. 500/- to his minor daughter and out of remaining Rs. 1300/- he has to maintain not only himself but also his minor son Priyanshu. 8. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.09.2009, passed by the trial court. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 01.07.2010 Parul