Ahsan vs State of Uttaranchal and Others

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Case No. 160 of 2004, whereby the learned Family Judge has awarded interim maintenance @ Rs. 1,500 p.m. to the Respondent No. 3-Smt. Sabana.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 3-Smt. Sabana moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Family Judge, Family Court, Hardwar stating therein that she was married with the present revisionist on 4.5.2001 as per Muslim rituals and her parents gave dowry as per their status. It was also stated that soon after the marriage, the revisionist and his family members started harassing respondent No. 3 for demand of dowry and started demanding Rs. 50,000 in cash and a scooter. It was also stated that father of respondent No. 3 was a poor man and he was not able to fulfil the demand of dowry, therefore, she was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry. It was also stated that in the month of February, 2004, the revisionist and his family members ousted respondent No. 3 from the house in the clothes worn by her by demanding Rs. 50,000 in cash and a scooter and since then, she is living in her parental house. It was further stated that on 31.5.2004, the revisionist and his family members came at the parental house of respondent No. 3 and again committed Marpit with her and also abused her for which respondent No. 3 lodged a case crime No. 212/2004 u/s 498A, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Jwalapur. It was further stated that she was having no source of income and on the other side, it was stated that the revisionist was having a Sawmill and 60 Bighas of agricultural land and was also having a grocery shop from which he was earning Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 40,000 per month. As such, an amount of Rs. 8,000 i.e. Rs. 5,000 for herself and Rs. 3,000 for her daughter was sought as interim maintenance. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application and stated that he was earning Rs. 900 only as wages from Sawmill and he was having no other source of income. It was also stated that he was facing the criminal proceedings u/s 498A, IPC. The learned Judge, Family Court, Hardwar after hearing Counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, vide his order dated 10.12.2004 allowed the application moved by Respondent No. 3 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,500 per month as interim maintenance to Respondent No. 3-Smt. Sabana. Against the said order dated 10.12.2004, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court.

I have heard Mr. Manish Arora, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

Mr. Manish Arora, learned Counsel for the revisionist stated at bar that the present revision has become infructuous in view of the fact that the present revision was preferred against the interim order and now the suit has finally been decided by the Court below and, as such, the present revision has become infructuous and may be dismissed as such.

Even otherwise, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Hardwar.

For the reasons recorded above, the criminal revision is dismissed as infructuous. Interim order dated 24.12.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated.