Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.Consequent upon the information given to this Court that learned counsel for the revisionist is no more, notice was directed to be issued to the revisionist to enable him to engage a new counsel. Notice was issued to the revisionist and as per the report of the Registry, revisionist is served with such notice. But none is present for the revisionist to press the criminal revision filed by him.

2. An application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants Smt. Mamta (wife) and Km. Ansula (minor daughter) for grant of monthly maintenance allowance against Manoj Kumar Pal (husband/father). The said application was contested by the opposite party. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun framed three points for consideration. Such points are:

(i) Whether the wife has sufficient cause to live separately

(ii) Whether the wife is unable to maintain herself

(iii) To what amount of maintenance, the applicant is entitled

3. Whereas applicant examined herself as P.W. 1, the opposite party examined himself as D.W. 1. Learned court below, on the basis of the testimony of the disputants and documents thus filed, came to the conclusion that the applicant-wife had sufficient reason to live separately from her husband, inasmuch as she was harassed and tortured on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Medical certificate of the applicant-wife was also brought on record.

4. The applicant-wife was M.A., B.Ed. She worked as teacher in a school at Dak Pathar and earned a salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month, but that was the position before her marriage with the opposite party. When applicant-wife started living separately from her husband, she applied for job, but could not get the same. It was, therefore, held that the applicant-wife was unable to maintain herself and her husband, having sufficient means, neglected or refused to maintain his wife/daughter. The monthly income of the husband was assessed at Rs. 5,753/- per month and in such a situation, learned Principal Judge, Family Court committed no mistake in directing the husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to his minor daughter, from the date of filing of the petition. It was also mentioned in the impugned order that the wife shall be entitled to receive such amount of maintenance till she gets employment. No document has been offered to show that the applicant-wife has obtained some kind of a job. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned judgment and order. No interference is called for in the same. Criminal revision lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed.