Uttarakhand High CourtPrakash Lal vs Smt. Pramila And Another on 12 September, 2017Author:V.K. BistBench:V.K. BistIN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Criminal Revision No.147 of 2016

Prakash Lal                                      ......Revisionist

                              Versus

Smt. Pramila & another                           ...RespondentsNo representation for the revisionist.Mr Navnish Negi, Advocate for the respondents.Dated: 12.09.2017

Hon'ble V.K. Bist J.Earlier Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate appeared on
behalf of the revisionist but on two consecutive dates
nobody has appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Today
case has been revised, but nobody appeared on behalf of
the revisionist. The Court proceeded in the matter.2.         This revision has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 24.02.2016 passed by Judge
Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.52 of
2015, Smt. Pramila and another vs. Prakash Lal whereby
the learned Judge Family Court, Pauri Garhwal partly
allowed the application of the respondents underSection
125Cr.P.C. granting maintenance of `2,000/- per month to
respondent     no.1-wife    and     `1,000/-      per   month     to
respondent no.2-Master Priyanshu from the date of filing
the application and directed the revisionist to pay the entire
arrear of maintenance since the date of filing till the date of
order within one month and pay `3,000/- per month to the
respondents as maintenance.23.        The marriage of the revisionist was solemnized on
21.05.2002 at Village Kesunder, Patti Idwalsue, District
Pauri Garhwal according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Out of
their wedlock a daughter aged about 11 years and a son
aged about 9 years were born. After some time, the
behaviour of the revisionist became cruel for respondent
no.1. He used to beat her, abuse her and also used to
comment on her character. Once the revisionist took her to
Delhi. There also she was beaten and abused. On this,
respondent no.1 made a complaint at Police Station, New
Delhi in which a compromise took place. In December 2006,
the revisionist left his job and came back to his village
Amoli with his family. On 15.06.2008 he turned out the
respondent no.1 and small son from the house. On
21.10.2010 a notice was sent by respondent no.1 to the
revisionist. Thereafter the revisionist alongwith his brother
and bhabhi came to the house of respondent no.1 and
entered   into   compromise   in   front   of   Pradhan   and
Panchayat. Inspite of the compromise, the revisionist again
started beating and abusing the respondent no.1. On
09.05.2015 revisionist turned out respondent no.1 from the
house.    Thereafter, an application underSection 125Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent no.1 claiming `15,000/-
per month as maintenance for herself as well as for her son.
The revisionist filed objection 12 Ka to the said application
in which he admitted the marriage and his children but
denied the allegations of cruelty. He levelled allegations
against respondent no.1 that respondent no.1 is a lady of
quarrel mind and she does not want to live in joint family
due to which she quarrelled with the revisionist. Further
she used to pressurise him for living in her parental house.
In the objection, he also stated that he is less educated and
is doing farming in his village and there is no source of3income. He used to maintain his family by doing labour
work. He stated that he has liability of his daughter and old
aged mother.4.        The    Judge     Family    Court,   Pauri     Garhwal,
considered the submission of counsel for the revisionist and
recorded finding that the behaviour of the revisionist
compelled the respondent no.1 to live at her parental house.
The court also held that the respondent no.1 has no source
of income. As far as the income of revisionist is concerned,
the respondents pleaded that the revisionist is working in
Tehri   Dam    and   is   getting   `15,000/-per    month       and
`20,000/-per month from agriculture and contract work.
These facts were denied by the revisionist. The Judge
Family Court, by considering the fact that revisionist was
earlier working in Delhi and also considering the fact that
he has not submitted any evidence in support of his
income, found the income of the revisionist as `7,000/- and
directed him to pay `2,000/- to respondent no.1-wife and
`1,000/- to respondent no.2-Master Priyanshu.5.        I have considered the submission of learned
counsel for the respondents and also gone through the
judgment of learned Judge Family Court, Pauri Garhwal. I
find that the amount awarded to the respondents is quite
reasonable. Therefore, there is nothing on which basis the
order passed by the Judge Family Court can be interfered
with. The revision is dismissed. [Misc. application no.535 of
2017 stands disposed of.]



                                               (V.K.Bist, J.)
                                                   12.09.2017
Arti