IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.145 of 2008 Rajendra Prasad Uniyal … Revisionist Versus Smt. Roshni Uniyal … Respondent Dated: March 18, 2009 Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.41 of 2006, Smt. Roshni Uniyal Vs. State and another, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment and order dated 28.9.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tehri Garhwal and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of original application filed before the trial court. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for respondent and perused the entire material on record. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent- Smt. Roshni Uniyal moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 16.6.2002 as per Hindu RITES and she is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. After some time of marriage, she was ill-treated and revisionist started complaining that she (respondent) suffering from the skin disease and he will remarry after divorce from her. Then the respondent was sent to her father’s house on 15.7.2003 but the revisionist never cared for her nor any maintenance was given to her. It was further stated that she had no source of income whereas the revisionist is posted as a Personal Officer at Escorts Company Ltd., Faridabad and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. With all these averments an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was sought by the respondent for her maintenance and further Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses against the revisionist. The revisionist appeared before the court below, filed his objection against the application and stated that he is ready and willing to live with his wife but she herself is living separately without any reason. Learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), New Tehri vide his judgment and order dated 31.1.2005 rejected the said application moved by the respondent on the ground that the revisionist is ready and willing to keep her as his wife and maintain her but the respondent-wife is living separately without any sufficient cause. Against that order, the respondent-wife preferred a revision which was decided by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide judgment and order dated 1.9.2006 whereby the revision was allowed and the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by trial court was cancelled and the file was remanded back to the trial court for deciding the matter afresh as per law in the light of observations made in the body of judgment. After the remand of the case, learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Tehri Garhwal per his judgment and order dated 28.9.2006 again rejected the application moved by respondent-wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, the respondent-wife preferred a revision before Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide his judgment and order dated 14.2.2007 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.9.2006 passed by trial court and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent – wife from the date of her original application filed before the trial court. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.02.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, the revisionist-husband has preferred this revision. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the court below has erred in awarding excessive amount of maintenance against the revisionist. I do not find any force in this argument. According to the respondent, the monthly income of the revisionist is Rs.30,000/- per month, where the revisionist himself admitted that his monthly income is Rs.9,000/- per month. The court below has rightly recorded finding that the revisionist-husband himself admitted his income is Rs.9,000/- per month although he did not produce his salary certificate. As such it was rightly held that his income is much more than Rs.9,000/- per month, which the revisionist is concealing. It was further rightly held by the court below that if the income of revisionist is presumed to be Rs.9,000/- per month, then the respondent, who is his wife, should be given at least 30 to 40 per cent of this amount. In these circumstances, the court below rightly determined the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to be paid to the respondent by the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly argued that the amount of maintenance as directed by the court below may be directed to be paid by the revisionist from the date of order passed by Sessions Judge. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal shows that the learned Sessions Judge has directed the amount of maintenance to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent from the date of her original application filed before the trial court without any rhyme or reason. Hence, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the amount of maintenance to be paid from the date of order passed by the court below. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.02.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance allowance i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month shall be paid by the revisionist to the respondent from the date of the judgment and order i.e. 14.02.2007 instead of from the date of application. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 18, 2009 Rajeev Dang