IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.251 OF 2007 Pramod Kumar S/o Sri Mangu Singh R/o Gram-Post Baxanpur, Tehsil-Dhampur, District-Biznaur, U.P. ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …... Respondents Dated: November 17, 2008 Sri Manoj Mohan, Adv. holding brief of Sri Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for respondent no.2 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 5.9.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No.55/2006, Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Vs. Pramod Kumar, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,250/- per month as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2 from the date of application. It was also directed that after adjusting the amount of interim maintenance, the arrears shall be paid by the revisionist within one month from the date of order. The amount of maintenance allowance was directed to be paid by the 10th of each month. 2. I have heard Sri Manoj Mohan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the 2 State/respondent no.1 and Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2 got married with the revisionist on 1.12.2000 as per Hindu RITES and in the marriage the father of respondent no.2 gave articles worth Rs.1.00 Lac. It was also stated that the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the father of respondent no.2 and due to not fulfillment of the demand of dowry by respondent no.2, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the revisionist and his family members who have also continued to oust respondent no.2 from their house. It was also stated that on 9.8.2006 she was ousted from her in-laws house and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that she does not have any source of income therefore she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it was stated that the revisionist is posted as Technician in Brass Metal Works, Muradabad from where he earns Rs.8,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2 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 moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material on record, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 5.9.2007, directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 5.9.2007, the revisionist/husband has come up in revision before this Court. 3 4. Sri Manoj Mohan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist solely argued that the amount of maintenance as directed by the court below is excessive and without evidence. I do not find any force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist for the reason that the court below in his judgment has recorded categorical finding that the revisionist is posted in factory. The revisionist was also directed to produce the pay slips from his office however after repeated opportunities he did not produce the same. The court below also recorded the finding that the revisionist is a skilled artisan and is posted in a factory. Since the revisionist did not produce his pay slips therefore the court below after considering the revisionist to be a skilled artisan, determined the monthly income of the revisionist to be in between Rs.3,500-4,000/- per month. Therefore, the court below rightly held the monthly income of the revisionist to be Rs.3,500-4,000/- per month. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that respondent no.2 is unable to maintain herself and due to the ousting by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her for the demand of dowry though he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife-respondent no.2. Therefore, the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,250/- per month as maintenance allowance to respondent no.2 from the date of application. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 5.9.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal. 4 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 5.12.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.11.2008 RG