RAMGOPAL @ PAPPU Vs. KIRAN AND FOUR OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision, preferred Under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Code of Criminal Procedure) read with 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 Anr. v. Ramgopal @ Pappu, whereby the learned Principal Judge allowed the application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 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.