IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.31 OF 2006 Vikram Singh, S/o Sri Bachan Singh R/o T-3, 1st, Dhalipur, P.S. Vikasnagar District Dehradun ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Sarita 3. Master Rohit (minor) .…... Respondents Dated: March 17, 2009 Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. M.A. Khan, learned 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(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.322/03, Smt. Sarita & Another Vs. Vikram Singh, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.3, in total Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance allowance, from the date of order. 2. I have heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. Perused the entire material available on file. 2 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Sarita moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and her minor son/respondent no.3 stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 11.2.1997 as per Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Kirti and Rohit were born. It was also stated that after 5-6 months of the marriage, the behaviour of the revisionist and his family members became cruel towards her and they started torturing and beating her. The revisionist started demanding Rs.50,000/- in cash from her for getting government job and when she did not meet out the demand of the revisionist then she was also subjected to physical harassment. On 14.10.2003 the revisionist and his family members came to her parental house and again made a demand of Rs.50,000/- and also threatened her. The revisionist and his family members ousted the respondent no.2 from the house for the demand of money. Since then the respondent no.2 is residing at her parental house along with her minor son. It was also stated that the revisionist is a driver and he has agricultural land in his village. As such, the revisionist was showing to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated that she did not have any source of income and therefore, she is unable to maintain herself and her son. The parents of the respondent no.2 are also very poor and they are unable to bear the expenses of respondent no.2 and her son/respondent no.3. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was sought by the respondent no.2 for maintenance of herself and her minor son against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and has admitted 3 the fact of marriage with the respondent no.2 and a son born out from their wedlock but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application moved by the respondent no.2. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material available on file, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 1.2.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 6. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the court below has erred by awarding excessive maintenance amount against the revisionist. I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist. The respondent no.2- Smt. Sarita leveled a charge against the revisionist and his family members that they have ousted her from their house due to demand of dowry. She also stated that her husband (Revisionist) was demanding Rs.50,000/- as dowry for getting government job and due to this reason, she has got sufficient reason to live separate from the revisionist. The revisionist also stated in his written statement that he does the labour work and earns Rs.60/- per day. The respondent no.2-wife has stated in her application that the revisionist earns Rs.10,000/- per month, however no reliable evidence was produced in support of that averment before the court below. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below rightly came to the conclusion that even if the revisionist does labour work then the monthly income of the revisionist cannot be less than Rs.3,000/- 4 per month and accordingly the court below rightly awarded Rs.1,500/- as maintenance amount to be given to the respondent nos.2 and 3 against the revisionist from the date of order i.e.1.2.2006. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and her son/respondent no.3 and due to ousting by the 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 his wife though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent nos.2 and 3 for maintenance of her and her son against the revisionist. 8. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 1.2.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 03.03.2006 passed by the Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.03.2009 RG