IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.34 of 2007 Ajadveer @ Pappu S/o Rishipal Singh … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal and two others … Respondents Dated: January 2, 2009 Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for State/Respondent Nos.1&2 Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist 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 16.01.2007 passed by Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.10/2006, Smt. Seema Vs. Ajadveer, by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.3-wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to her daughter-Km. Shivani, in total Rs.2,000/- per month, as maintenance allowance from the date of the application i.e. 31.10.2003. 2. I have heard Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent Nos.1&2 and Sri Lokpal Singh, Adv. for Respondent No.3 and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of case are that Respondent No.3-Smt. Seema moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist on 08.03.1990 as per Hindu RITES and her father gave dowry as per his status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and they started harassing her for getting more dowry. It was also stated that several times, her father gave some money in dowry to the revisionist however there was no change in the attitude of the revisionist and his family members and they continued to harass her physically and mentally. It was also stated that in the month of November, 2002, revisionist and his family members beaten her and the revisionist left her at her parental house. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2003, revisionist took respondent no.3 at his house but there was no change in his behavior. On 23.9.2003, revisionist and his parents again beaten her by demanding Rs.50,000/- in dowry, the information in this regard she also gave to her father by telephone. On 25.9.2003, her father took respondent no.3 at her parental house in state of dying. Then, she was medically been examined and a complaint in this regard was also filed before ACJM, Roorkee. Out of the said wedlock, two children (a boy and a girl) were also born out. It was also stated that the revisionist also left her daughter at her parental house and she along with her daughter are residing at her parental house. It was also stated that the revisionist have some agricultural land and he also does business of selling buffaloes and also sells milk from where he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated that she does not know any work so as to maintain herself and her daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was sought by respondent no.3 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee vide her judgment and order dated 16.01.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the revisionist argued that the court below has erred in awarding excessive amount of maintenance to the respondents against the revisionist. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that the respondent no.3 stated the monthly income of the revisionist to be Rs.15,000/- per month. The revisionist stated that he did not have any source of income. He also stated that his father had died and the will of agricultural land is in his mother’s name and he is residing separately from his mother. The court below in this regard has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist is the only son of his parents and it is not possible that after death of his father, he would live separately from his widow mother. The son of revisionist is residing with him and the revisionist has to make arrangement for his maintenance also and thus the court below has rightly recorded a finding that the revisionist must be doing some work. It was also stated that the revisionist is a hale and hearty person and it cannot be said that the revisionist was not doing any work. Even the court below has rightly recorded a finding that the will may be in the name of revisionist’s mother, however the revisionist himself must be doing work over the said land. Thus, the court below after considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- for maintenance of respondent no.3-wife and Rs.1,000/- for maintenance of her daughter, in total Rs.2,000/- per month, from the date of application i.e. 31.10.2003. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.3 is unable to maintain herself and her daughter and due to ousting by revisionist and his family members for the demand of dowry, she along with her daughter 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 no.3 for maintenance of her and her daughter against the revisionist. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 14.03.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) January 2, 2009 Rajeev Dang