IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 144 of 2005 Atiyar Rehman .…. Revisionist Versus Judge, Family Court & Anr. …… Respondents April 6, 2009 None for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder fo the respondent no. 1. r None for the respondent no. 2. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. I have heard learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. None appeared on behalf of revisionist as well as on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite sufficient service. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Application no. 93 of 2003, Smt. Mumtaz Begum v. Atiyar Rehman under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur has partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance amounting to Rs. 1000/- per month to Smt. Mumtaz Begum/respondent no. 2 from the date of the impugned application i.e. 4.7.2003. 3. Facts, in brief, are that revisionist Atiyar Rehman got married to Smt. Mumtaz Begum/respondent no. 2 around 24 years ago as per Muslim rituals. They have four children from the said wedlock. Their eldest daughter is married. Respondent no. 2 alleged that after few years of their marriage, revisionist tried to force her into prostitution in order to make quick bucks and when 2 she tried to resist on this issue, the revisionist used to badly beat her up and had even threatened to kill her. In the night of 20.6.2003, revisionist thrashed Smt. Mumtaz Begum/respondent no. 2 on similar incident and ousted her from the house. Thereafter she started living separately. Respondent no. 2 filed an application for maintenance with the aforesaid averments alleging that her husband (revisionist) is engaged in the profession of tailoring and earns Rs. 5000/- per month by the said business. She has further stated that the revisionist also does some other work and thereby earns Rs. 2000/- per month. Respondent no. 2 claimed that she has no source of livelihood and is unable to maintain herself and demanded maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month from the revisionist. 4. Revisionist Atiyar Rehman denied the allegations made by respondent no. 2 Smt. Mumtaz Begum and claimed that has deserted him as well as her children on her own and has been living separately. It was also alleged on behalf of the revisionist that his wife (respondent no. 2) is a woman of bad character and she is living in adultery. He also stated that he earns his livelihood by doing mazdoori and is somehow maintaining his children. He has further stated that his wife earns handsome money by the work of tailoring, etc. and she is in a position to maintain herself . 5. After appreciating the evidence and other materials available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 7.6.2005, partly allowed the application of the respondent no. 2 and awarded maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to her with effect from the date of making the application i.e. 4.7.2003. 3 6. While partly allowing the application of the respondent no. 2, the court below has held that charge of adultery has not been proved against respondent no. 2 by the evidence adduced on behalf of the revisionist. Since all the three witnesses examined on behalf of the revisionist stated in their cross-examination that the revisionist is doing the work of tailoring and mazdoori, but the revisionist tried to conceal this fact before the court below, therefore, in this view of matter, learned court below has rightly held the monthly income of revisionist as Rs. 5000/- as claimed by the respondent no. 2 in her application. Furthermore, respondent no. 2 was forced to leave separately because of cruel behaviour of revisionist as he was trying to force her into prostitution. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the revisionist was intentionally neglecting the respondent no. 2 and was avoiding to maintain her despite having sufficient means. As such, learned Judge, Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent no. 2 is entitled to get the maintenance from the revisionist. Since the revisionist has four children, out of them three are living with him while one daughter has got married and, therefore, in these circumstances the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month with effect from the date of making the application i.e. 4.7.2003. 7. In view of the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Judge in his impugned order dated 7.6.2005, which requires no interference by this Court. The present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4 8. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 7.6.2005 is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 26.7.2005 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 06.04.2009 PRABODH