NAVAB NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(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 2.1.2007 passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No.35 of 2005, whereby the learned Addl. Judge has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2/wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.800/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the case i.e. 29.3.2005. It was also directed that the arrears shall be paid by the revisionist to the respondent no.2 per month in ten equal installments.

(2.) List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for respondent no.1 as well as Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Perused the entire material available on file.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Husanjahan (respondent no.2) moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist with the averments that she got married with the revisionist in the year 2003 as per Muslim customs. In the marriage, her father gave dowry beyond his status. However, the revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they started torturing her for the demand of dowry after the marriage. Respondent no.2 continued to bear the harassment but the revisionist and his family members then also started beating her for dowry. It is further alleged that when her father and brother used to visit her matrimonial house to meet her, she was not allowed to meet them. On 1.12.2004, the revisionist committed Marpeet with her and ousted her from the house for the demand of dowry. Since then she is residing at her parental house and the revisionist has not paid any heed towards her. It is further stated that the revisionist has a grocery shop and is also having a dairy and from all these sources he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent no.2 is having no source of income. She does not know sewing or knitting work and is therefore unable to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month for maintenance of herself was sought by respondent no.2 against the revisionist.