IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.239 of 2005 Ranjeet Singh … Revisionist Versus Principal Judge, Family Court and another … Respondents Dated: March 24, 2009 Sri M.S. Bisht, Adv. for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State 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 21.11.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Crl. Appln. No.196/2004, Smt. Sandeep Kaur Vs. Ranjit Singh, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 20.9.2004. 2. I have heard Sri M.S. Bisht, Adv. for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for State and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Smt. Sandeep Kaur got married with the revisionist on 28.1.2004 as per Sikh rituals. The revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of respondent no.2 and for this reason they started her mental harassment. On 8.5.2004, revisionist and his family members ousted the respondent no.2 from the house after committing Marpit with her and directed her to come back only with a motorcycle. Thereafter, a Panchayat was conducted on 31.8.2004, in which the in- laws of respondent no.2 directed respondent no.2 that if she would come back without a motorcycle, then she would be set ablaze. The respondent no.2 is an illiterate lady and does not any work to maintain herself. On the other hand, revisionist works as a Mechanic in a Mill from where he gets Rs.2,500/- per month. The revisionist also owns 4 acres of alnd from where his monthly income is more than Rs.10,000/-. As such, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was sought as maintenance by respondent no.2 against there revisionist. The revisionist appeared before the court below, 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, learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 directed the revisionist as above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.11.2005, the revisionist has filed the present revision. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri M.S. Bisht, Adv. for the revisionist submitted at bar that both the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court and now they are living peacefully with each other and for this revision he does not want to press his revision and prayed that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the court below and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order. 6. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 15.12.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 24, 2009 Rajeev Dang