Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 727 (UTT)

Ramgopal @ Pappu v. Kiran

2010-09-28

DHARAM VEER

body2010
JUDGMENT 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 9.9.2002 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.197 of 2002, Smt. Kiran and another v. Ramgopal @ Pappu, whereby the learned Principal Judge allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 1,500/- per month each to respondent nos.1 and 2 (in total ` 3,000/-per month) from the date of application i.e. 15.5.2001. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Smt. Kiran moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist stating therein that she got married to the revisionist on 5.5.1992 as per Hindu RITES. In the marriage, her father gave dowry as per his status however the revisionist was not satisfied with the dowry and after 4-5 months of the marriage the revisionist started harassing her physically and mentally for the demand of dowry. In January 1995, a girl was also born out of the said wedlock. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 continued to bear the harassment for the sake of her matrimonial life. But ultimately in October 1996, the revisionist ousted the respondent no.1 along with her minor child from the house. It is alleged that since then the revisionist did not pay any heed towards them. It is further stated that the revisionist does tailoring work and from where he was shown to be earning ` 8,000-10,000/-per month. Besides this, he is also earning ` 2,000/-per month towards the rent of house. On the other hand, it is stated that the respondent no.1 is an illiterate woman and she does not any work so as to maintain herself and her daughter. With these averments, an amount of ` 2,000/-per month for each of respondent nos.1 and 2 was sought as maintenance amount against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. With these averments, an amount of ` 2,000/-per month for each of respondent nos.1 and 2 was sought as maintenance amount against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, vide judgment and order dated 9.9.2002 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. So far as the maintenance amount of respondent nos.1 and 2 is concerned, the court below has accepted that the revisionist is doing tailoring work and from where he must be earning ` 3,000-4,000/-per month. Apart from above, he is the only legal heir of his parents and as such he must also be getting rent of the house which is ` 2,000/-per month. Thus, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the financial status of the revisionist, the court below rightly awarded ` 1,500/-per month each for maintenance of respondent nos.1 and 2 against the revisionist. 5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is unable to maintain herself and respondent no.2 and due to ousting by revisionist for the demand of dowry, she along with respondent no.2/daughter is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting his wife and daughter though he has got sufficient means to maintain them. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent nos.1 and 2 for their maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above. 6. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 9.9.2002 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.