IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.41 OF 2005 Amjad Ali … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Dated: August 11, 2010 Sri Manish Arora, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, 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 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2005 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.18/2004, Smt. Parveen Bano Vs. Amjad Ali. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that revisionist was married with respondent no.3 on 19.5.2002 and Rs.10,000/- was given in Mehar and a daughter was also born out of the said wedlock. It was stated that the revisionist is having physical relations with other women. She is an illiterate lady and does not know any work to maintain herself while the revisionist earns Rs.30,000/- per month from his own Bus and as such Rs.2000/- for herself and Rs.1000/- for her daughter was sought as maintenance. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and denied the allegations made in the application. After hearing the parties, the court below vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2005 directed the revisionist to pay Rs.500/- per month for herself and Rs.200/- for her daughter, in total Rs.700/- to the respondent no.2 from the date of application i.e. 15.1.2004. Hence this revision. So far as the income of revisionist is concerned, the revisionist himself admitted before the court below that he earns Rs.50/- per day after 2 working as a Conductor. Looking to the present scenario, even if it is assumed that the revisionist is working as a labourer, in that case also, his monthly income cannot be said to be less than Rs.3000/- per month. On the other hand, it is the legal responsibility of the revisionist to maintain his wife. The court below after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the monthly income of Rs.3000/- per month is proved and as such the trial court awarded Rs.700/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife for maintenance of herself and her daughter. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the court below rightly awarded the maintenance to the respondent/wife against the revisionist and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 24.1.2005 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 03.03.2005 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 11, 2010 Rajeev Dang