NOOR HASAN ALIAS MANGTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

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 10.1.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.24 of 2002, Smt. Khushnuma and another v. Noorhasan alias Mangta, whereby the learned Principal Judge directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife (respondent no.3) and Rs.1,000/- per month to his minor son (respondent no.4).

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(3.) In brief the facts of case are that on 14.6.1994 Respondent No.3-Smt. Khushnuma moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance amount for herself and her son (respondent no.4) against the revisionist. Thereafter, she moved an application for interim maintenance, which was allowed on 23.3.1998 and Rs.250/- per month each to respondent no.3 and 4 was awarded. Later on respondent no.3 moved another application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for the enhancement of the maintenance. On the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. moved by respondent no.3, the court below directed the revisionist to pay Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.3 and Rs.300/- per month to respondent no.4 as interim maintenance. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He admitted the fact of marriage with respondent no.3 and also a son (respondent no.4) born out of the said wedlock but has denied rest of the averments made in the applications. However, he admitted his income to Rs.2000-2500 per month. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, vide order dated 10.1.2005, finally disposed of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 and 4 as maintenance allowance. Against the said judgment and order dated 10.1.2005, the revisionist-husband has come up in revision before this Court.