JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J.: Both these criminal revisions have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 03.01.2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital and the parties in both the revisions are same and the dispute is also same, hence both the revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. These criminal revisions, 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 03.01.2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No. 94/2007, Smt. Mehtab & another Vs. Naimuddin, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application moved by Smt. Mehtab Jahan-revisionist no. 1 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the respondent no. 1-husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to revisionist no. 1 – wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to revisionist no. 2 son (in total Rs. 3,500/- per month), as maintenance allowance from the date of filing the application i.e. 12.6.2007. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Mehtar Jahan moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and her son- Revisionist No. 2 with the averments that she got married with the respondent no. 1 on 19.10.1996 as per Muslim customs. In the marriage, the parents of the revisionist no. 1 had given dowry as per their status however, the respondent no. 1 – husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by them and they started taunting her for bringing less dowry and also started demanding motorcycle and colour T.V. When she showed her incapability then she was also subjected to mental and physical harassment. After the marriage she came to know that her husband has a criminal record and he has been convicted u/s 307 I.P.C. in the past. Even after knowing this fact she kept quite only because of her house. The revisionist no. 1 told her parents about the problems she was facing. Then her father after borrowing money from the relatives gave colour T.V. to her husband. After that the behaviour of her husband and her in-laws remained normal but after sometime their behaviour again became cruel. The revisionist no. 1 told her parents about the problems she was facing. Then her father after borrowing money from the relatives gave colour T.V. to her husband. After that the behaviour of her husband and her in-laws remained normal but after sometime their behaviour again became cruel. Their demand of dowry started increasing and they started torturing her for the same but she continued to bear the same for the sake of her family. After five months of the marriage, the respondent no. 1 husband and his family members after committing Marpeet with the revisionist no. 1 wife ousted her from the house in her pregnant condition for the demand of motorcycle. Since then she is residing at her parental house. She gave birth to a son at her parental house and the entire expenses were borne by her father. It was also stated that after ousting from the house the respondent no. 1 husband has not paid any amount for maintenance of herself and her son. It was also stated that the revisionist no. 2 son is 10 years’ old and is studying in Class IV and about Rs. 2,000/- per month spends in his education. It was also stated that she is having no source of income so as to maintain herself and her son. On the other hand, it was stated by the revisionist no. 1 wife that the respondent no. 1 husband does electricity work and has 40 generators, from where he earns Rs. 200/- per day per generator by letting them on rent. Besides this, the respondent no. 1 has two residential houses in which there are ten tenants and from where also he is getting rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the revisionist no. 1 wife for maintenance of herself and her son. 4. The respondent no. 1 also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and has admitted the fact of marriage with the revisionist no. 1 but has denied most of the averments made in the application moved by the revisionist no. 1 wife. He has also denied the fact that he has 40 generators. He has stated that he has only two generators from which he earns Rs. 200/- per day. 5. 1 but has denied most of the averments made in the application moved by the revisionist no. 1 wife. He has also denied the fact that he has 40 generators. He has stated that he has only two generators from which he earns Rs. 200/- per day. 5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 03.01.2009 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 03.01.2009, CRLR No. 27/09 has been preferred by the revisionists for enhancing the amount of maintenance and CRLR No. 15/2009 has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and order. 6. Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that since the Respondent No. 1 has given divorce (Talaq) to the Revisionist No. 1 wife on 15.5.2008 orally, hence she is not entitled to get any maintenance. I do not find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 – husband has stated in his evidence that he has given divorce to the Revisionist No. 1 wife on 15.5.2008, according to Muslim customs in presence of three witnesses, whose information was given to the revisionist No. 1 Smt. Mehtab Jahan by the witnesses. In support of this averment, he has examined Taqueer Ahmed as D.W.2, who has also stated the same fact. The court below with regard to the plea of divorce has recorded a finding that the said divorce (Talaq) dated 15.5.2008 was filed in the court certainly after submission of the written statement. However, the Respondent No. 1 husband did not take any plea about the said Talaq in his written statement. Therefore, the court below has rightly held that without taking any plea by the Respondent No. 1 husband for divorce (Talaq), the same is not at all helpful for him. It was also rightly held that the evidence given by the Respondent No. 1 husband is out of the plea taken by him in the written statement, which too is not helpful for the Respondent No. 1. It was also rightly held that the evidence given by the Respondent No. 1 husband is out of the plea taken by him in the written statement, which too is not helpful for the Respondent No. 1. Besides this, the court below has recorded a categorical finding that the said divorce (Talaq) dated 15.5.2008 does not seem reasonable because of the reason that in the said divorce there were no signatures of any witnesses. Therefore, the court below rightly held that the validity of the said divorce (Talaq) becomes doubtful. Accordingly, the said divorce (Talaq) was not accepted by the court below. Hence, this finding of the court below is correct and justified and does not require any interference. 7. Sri Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the Revisionist No. 1 wife argued that the court below has erred in law by awarding such meager final maintenance to the revisionists by which they cannot maintain themselves at all. I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionists. The revisionist no. 1 wife in her application and in oral evidence has stated that the respondent no. 1 husband has two residential houses from where he is getting Rs. 12,000/- per month. Besides this, he also has 40 generators from where he is getting rent of Rs. 200/- per day per generator. However, no relevant document was produced in support of that averment before the court below. In this regard, the Respondent No. 1 husband appeared before the court below and was examined as D.W.1 and had stated that he has only two generators and his monthly income is not more than Rs. 6,000/- per month. In support of this averment, he has also not produced any relevant document before the court below. The revisionist no. 1 has filed income tax return of the respondent no. 1 of the assessment year 2006-07 in which his yearly income was shown to be Rs. 99,465/-. Thus, it is clear from the income tax return that the monthly income of the respondent no. 1 husband is about Rs. 8,300/- per month. Besides this, it is proved that the revisionist no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent no. 1 and she also has one son, who is also dependent upon her. 99,465/-. Thus, it is clear from the income tax return that the monthly income of the respondent no. 1 husband is about Rs. 8,300/- per month. Besides this, it is proved that the revisionist no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent no. 1 and she also has one son, who is also dependent upon her. She has stated in her written statement that her son is studying in Class IV in Rising Star Public School, Haldwani and at least Rs. 2,000/- per month are required for his education. In the above circumstances, it is proved that the court below has erred in law in awarding such meager amount of maintenance allowance to the revisionists. Thus, I am of the view that as much of amount of maintenance is to be fixed so that the revisionist no. 1 wife can maintain herself and her son also. As such, after considering these facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the monthly income of the respondent no. 1 husband, the Court is of the view that the interests of justice would be met if an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to revisionist no. 1 wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to revisionist no. 2 (in total Rs. 4,000/- per month) would be awarded as maintenance. 8. For the reasons recorded above, it is partly allowed. The Judgment and order dated 03.01.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital, is modified to the extent that the respondent no. 1 husband will pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to revisionist no. 1 wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to revisionist no. 2 son (in total Rs. 4,000/- per month), from the date of filling the application i.e. 12.6.2007. The arrears shall also be paid by the respondent no. 1 husband within three months. 9. Consequently, the Criminal Revision No. 15/2009, preferred by the revisionist Naimuddin stands dismissed. Interim order dated 21.01.2009 passed in also stands vacated.