PRADEEP MOHAN SAXENA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision preferred under Section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 20/2006, Ekta Saxena & Anr v. Pradeep Mohan Saxena u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the Judge, Family Court has allowed the said application of respondents no. 2 & 3 and awarded maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent no. 2 Ekta Saxena till the date of her marriage and Rs. 100/- per month to respondent no. 3 Shivam Saxena till the date of his attaining the age of majority to be payable by the revisionist by 8th of every month with effect from the date of making the said maintenance application.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 is the daughter and respondent no. 3 is minor son of the revisionist. Smt. Reena got married with the revisionist on 8.11.1983 as per Hindu rites and respondents no. 2 & 3 born from the said wedlock. Since the revisionist started harassing his wife soon after the marriage, therefore, dissolution of marriage took place between them and she started living separately, but their children i.e. the respondents no. 2 & 3 were living with the revisionist. Since revisionist was not properly looking after his children and was neglecting them, therefore, respondents no. 2 & 3 came to their mother and started living with her. Subsequently, both the revisionist and Smt. Reena, mother of respondents no. 2 & 3 solemnized their second marriage. Thereafter respondents no. 2 & 3 filed a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC against the revisionist/father claiming maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month for each of them citing the reason that they have got no source of livelihood and they are unable to maintain themselves, whereas the revisionist being a permanent Govt. Servant was getting salary of Rs. 8000/- per month.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respondents and perused the papers available on record. None appeared for the revisionist.