YUNUS KURESHI Vs. JUDGE FAMILY COURT

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 11.6.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case No.183/2004, Smt. Salma and others v. Yunus Kureshi, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent no.2, Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 and 4, Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 (in total Rs.11,000/- per month) as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 9.9.2004. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by 7th of each of month.

(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. Salma moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar against the revisionist stating therein that she got married to the revisionist in February 1994 as per Muslim customs. Respondent nos.3 to 8 were born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that after the marriage the revisionist started taunting her for bringing less dowry and she was also subjected to mental and physical harassment for the demand of Rs.30,000/- cash. Due to non-fulfillment of the demand of money, the revisionist threatened her and her children (respondent nos.3 to 8) to life and also threatened her not to live with him. It is further alleged that the revisionist is living with another lady. It is stated that she is having no source of income and she does not know any work so as to maintain herself and her children. On the other hand, it is stated that the revisionist does business of animals and also does business of shoes in partnership. Besides this, he is also having a meat shop and, from all these sources, the revisionist is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. With these averments, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month for herself and Rs.2,000/- per month each to respondent nos.3 to 8 was sought as maintenance amount by respondent no.2. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and filed his written statement. He admitted his marriage with respondent no.2 and also the children (respondent nos.3 to 8) born out of the wedlock but denied rest of the averments made in the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on file, learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 11.6.2007 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision before this Court.