IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.18 OF 2005 Noor Hasan @ Mangta ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and three others ..…... Respondents Dated: August 9, 2010 Ms. Kamakshi Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4 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 10.1.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.24 of 2002, Smt. Khushnuma and another v. Noorhasan alias Mangta, whereby the learned Principal Judge directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife (respondent no.3) and Rs.1,000/- per month to his minor son (respondent no.4). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. In brief the facts of case are that on 14.6.1994 Respondent No.3-Smt. Khushnuma moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance amount for herself and her son (respondent no.4) against the revisionist. Thereafter, she moved an application for interim maintenance, which was allowed on 23.3.1998 and Rs.250/- per month each to respondent no.3 and 4 was awarded. Later on respondent no.3 moved another application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for the enhancement of the maintenance. On the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. moved by respondent no.3, the court below directed the revisionist to pay Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.3 and Rs.300/- per month to respondent no.4 as interim maintenance. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He admitted the fact of marriage with respondent no.3 and also a son (respondent no.4) born out of the said wedlock but has denied rest of the averments made in the applications. However, he admitted his income to Rs.2000-2500 per month. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, vide order dated 10.1.2005, finally disposed of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 and 4 as maintenance allowance. Against the said judgment and order dated 10.1.2005, the revisionist-husband has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist argued that the amount of maintenance as awarded by court below is excessive. I do not find any force in this argument. Respondent no.3/wife has levelled a charge against the revisionist that the revisionist used to harass her physically and mentally for the demand of dowry and she was ousted by the revisionist from the house for the same. With regard to income of the revisionist, respondent no.3 has stated that the revisionist earns Rs.10,000/- per month. But, this fact has been controverted by the revisionist, however, he has admitted his income to be Rs.2000-2500 per month. Hence, the 2 court below rightly held that the revisionist is having sufficient means and is fully able to maintain respondent nos.3 and 4. Accordingly, the court below rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month each to the respondent nos.3 and 4 against the revisionist. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.3 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is unable to maintain herself and her son (respondent no.4) and due to ousting by revisionist for the demand of dowry, she along with her son is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting the respondent nos.3 and 4 though he has got sufficient means to maintain them. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondents no.3 and 4 against the revisionist as discussed above. 5. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 11.2.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 9, 2010 RG 3