VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. PUSPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal and the matter in dispute is also one and the same, hence both these revisions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) BOTH the criminal revisions, preferred by the revisionists' under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Code of Criminal Procedure) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27.09.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Crl. Case No. 31 of 2006, Smt. Pushpa and Anr. v. Virendra Singh, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist -husband (Virendra Singh) to pay Rs. 4,500/ - per month (Rs. 2,700/ - per month for wife and Rs. 1,800/ - per month for daughter) as maintenance allowance to the Respondent -wife from the date of application.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 -wife (Smt. Pushpa Devi) moved an application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. with the averments that she got married with the revisionist -Virendra Singh on 5.5.2002 as per Hindu RITES. Out of the said wedlock, a girl Km. Kanika (Respondent No. 2) was born. Soon after the marriage, she was being harassed by revisionist -husband and his family members for dowry and they also demanded Rs. 50,000/ - from her. It was also stated that on 29.10.2005, revisionist -husband and his family members ousted the Respondent No. 1 -wife along with his daughter. The father of Respondent No. 1 persuaded the revisionist and his family members understand but all was in vein. It was further stated that revisionist is posted as Lecturer in a Govt. Inter College, Pauri Garhwal from where he gets Rs. 12,000/ - per month. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 -wife has no source of earning and she is unable to maintain herself. With all these averments, an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - per month for maintenance of Respondent No. 1 -wife and Rs. 3,000/ - per month for maintenance of Respondent No. 2 -daughter, in total Rs. 8,000/ - per month was sought as maintenance. The revisionist appeared before the court below, filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal per judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist -Virendra Singh has filed Crl. Revision No. 215/2006. Criminal Revision No. 138 of 2008 has been preferred by wife -Smt. Pushpa Devi on behalf of herself and her daughter for enhancement.