(1.) 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 9.1.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.30 of 2006, Smt. Pratigya v. Love Kumar Sharma, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application moved by respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the case. The revisionist was also directed to pay amount of arrears to respondent no.2 in six equal installments.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Pratigya moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court, Roorkee against the revisionist stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 11.5.2005 as per Hindu rites. Her father spent about Rs.5.00 Lacs in the marriage, however, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with it and after the marriage they started demanding Rs.2.50 Lacs and a car, in dowry. On her refusal, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. On 2.10.2005, the revisionist and his family members asked her to fulfill their aforesaid demands and on her refusal, they committed marpeet with her and ousted her from the house. After persuading the revisionist and his family members, her father and brother left her at her matrimonial house. Thereafter on 20.12.2005, her father and brother came to know about her well-being. On that day, the revisionist and his family members again made their aforesaid demands. When her father showed his inability to give the same, the revisionist committed marpeet with respondent no.2 and thereafter ousted her from the house. It is alleged that since 20.12.2005, she is residing at her parental house. It is further stated that she does not know any knitting or sewing work and is therefore unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, it is stated that the revisionist is posted as Storekeeper in Irrigation Department, Roorkee and earns Rs.8,000/- per month. Besides this, he also lent money on interest and from all these sources, he earns Rs.18,000/- per month. With these averments, an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He admitted his marriage with respondent no.2 and also the fact that he is working in Irrigation Department but has denied rest of the averments made in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Addl. Family Judge, Roorkee vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court.