Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 87 (UTT)

SOMPAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2009-03-04

DHARAM VEER

body2009
JUDGMENT This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafater 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 17.5.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No. 323/2003, Smt. Neelam & another Vs. Sompal Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the application moved by the respondent no. 2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 750/- per month each for maintenance of respondent nos. 2 and 3 (total Rs. 1,500/- per month) from the date of order. 2. I have heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State as well as Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Adv. holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and perused the entire material available on record. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Neelam moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 17.1.2001 as per Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter (respondent no. 3) was born. In the marriage, the parents of the respondent no. 2 gave dowry beyond their status however the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and they started demanding more dowry from the respondent no. 2. It was also stated that on 18.7.2003, after committing Marpeet with the respondent no. 2, the revisionist and his family members ousted her from the house in her wearing clothes and kept her entire Stridhan. Since then the respondent no. 2 is residing at her parental house. It was also stated that since then the revisionist has not paid any heed towards her nor he paid any amount for her maintenance. It was further stated that the revisionist runs a Tempo and he also does some other work and from all resources he is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated that the respondent no. 2 has got no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month each for respondent nos. 15,000/- per month. On the other hand, it was stated that the respondent no. 2 has got no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. With all these averments, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month each for respondent nos. 2 & 3 was sought as maintenance by the respondent no. 2 against the revisionist. 4. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and admitted the fact of marriage with respondent no. 2 and also a daughter born from their wedlock but has denied rest of the allegations made in the application. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 17.5.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and due to the harassment committed by the revisionist for the demand of dowry she along with her daughter is compelled to live at her parental house. The revisionist has got sufficient means even though he is intentionally neglecting his wife in order to get rid of the amount of maintenance whereas respondent no. 2 has got no source of income. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the revisionist himself has admitted before the court below that he earns Rs. 70/- per day. The court below has rightly held that even if the daily income of the revisionist is considered at least Rs. 100/- per day then also the revisionist earns Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was also held that the revisionist is also residing in his own house. Thus, after considering the income of the revisionist, the court below has rightly directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 750/- per month each for maintenance of respondent nos. 2/wife & respondent no.3/ daughter (total Rs. 1,500/- per month) from the date of order. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 17.5.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the aforesaid order. 8. 2/wife & respondent no.3/ daughter (total Rs. 1,500/- per month) from the date of order. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 17.5.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the aforesaid order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 12.06.2007 passed by this Court stands vacated.