PAPPU BALCHAND Vs. BABBI PAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr. P. C.) r/w Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 3. 7. 2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case No. 03 of 2004, whereby the learned Family Judge has awarded interim maintenance @rs. 1,000/- p. m. to the Respondent No. 2-Km. Ranjana, daughter of Smt. Baby- Respondent No. 1 from the date of application i. e. 26. 12. 2003.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1-Smt. Baby moved an application u/s 125 of Cr. P. C. before Judge, Family Court, Hardwar stating therein that she was married with the present revisionist in the year 1984 as per Hindu rituals and her father gave dowry as per his status. Out of the said wedlock, five children i. e. four sons and one daughter were also born. It was also stated that after some time of marriage, the revisionist started to share bed with another women namely Km. Neeru and when respondent no. 1 shown stopped the revisionist to do so, then he committed Marpit with her. It was also stated that thereafter the revisionist ousted respondent no. 1 from his house and started living with respondent no. 1. The sons were said to be living with the revisionist, however the daughter was said to be living with Respondent No. 1. It was further stated that she was having no source of income, however the revisionist was shown to be earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from the shop and a house of revisionist was also shown. As such, an amount of Rs. 8,000/- for herself and for her daughter was sought as interim maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court, Hardwar after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, vide his order dated 3. 7. 2004 allowed the application moved by Respondent No. 2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month for his daughter Km. Ranjana-Respondent No. 2 from the date of application i. e. 26/12/2003. Apart from this amount, Rs. 2,000/- were also directed to be paid by the revisionist to respondent no. 1 towards the procedural expenses. Against the said order dated 3/7/2004, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court.

(3.) I have heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.