Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 36 (UTT)

Brijesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-01-12

RAJIV SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This criminal revision is instituted against the order dated 13.10.2015 rendered by learned Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.89 of 2011. 2. “Key facts”, necessary for the adjudication of this revision are that the marriage between the revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 19.02.2006 according to the Hindu rites and customs. One son was also born out of the wedlock. 3. Respondent no.2 instituted a petition against the revisionist under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. According to the averments made in the petition, the revisionist started misbehaving with the respondent no.2. She was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 05.01.2007. 4. Thereafter, she started living with her parents. She was also harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. She filed an FIR against the revisionist and his family members under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC read with 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The revisionist has also not borne any expenditure at the time of birth of the boy. The monthly income of the revisionist was between Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/-. He was working in Surya Factory, Moradabad Road, Kashipur. 6. Respondent no.2 has no independent source of income. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was contested by the revisionist. He denied the allegations made in the petition. 7. According to the revisionist, he has never raised demand for Rs.50,000/- from the parents of the respondent no.2. 8. Learned Family Court granted Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent no.3. Hence, this criminal revision. 9. The marriage between the revisionist and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 19.02.2006. The respondent no.2 is residing with her parents since January, 2007. She has no source of income. 10. It has come on record that the revisionist’s family was demanding dowry from the respondent no.2. The revisionist has failed to maintain the respondent nos.2 and 3. The boy-respondent no.3 has started going to the school. The revisionist is working in Surya factory, Moradabad Road, Kashipur. He is double M.A. according to the statement of the father of the revisionist. 11. The revisionist is hale and hearty. It is the bounden duty of the revisionist to maintain the respondent nos.2 and 3. The revisionist also owns one acre of land. 12. Learned Trial Court has correctly assessed the monthly income of the revisionist between Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. 11. The revisionist is hale and hearty. It is the bounden duty of the revisionist to maintain the respondent nos.2 and 3. The revisionist also owns one acre of land. 12. Learned Trial Court has correctly assessed the monthly income of the revisionist between Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. The Trial Court has rightly granted the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent no.3. 13. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed.