Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2004, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Misc Criminal Case No. 39 of 2003, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife (respondent No. 1), and Rs. 500/- per month to his minor daughter (respondent No. 2).
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Hema Choudary and respondent No. 2 Km. Shakshi filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) against the present revisionist, claiming Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to be paid to respondent No. 1, and Rs. 1,500/- per month to be paid to the respondent No. 2. It is pleaded by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in their application before the trial court that respondent No. 1 Hema Choudary got married to the revisionist Narender Singh Choudary on 04.03.1998, at Haldwani. Respondent No. 2 Shakshi was born out of the wedlock, who was aged 21/2 years at the time of presentation of the application. It is pleaded by respondents No. 1 and 2 in their application before the trial court that the petitioner's behaviour with the present respondents was cruel, and ultimately forced them to leave the house of the revisionist on 04.05.2001. It is also pleaded by them that they are unable to maintain themselves. They further pleaded that the revisionist Narender Singh Choudary earns Rs. 22,000/- per month, and has a comfortable economic position to pay the maintenance claimed.
4. The revisionist contested the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., moved by respondents No. 1 and 2, and filed his written statement before the trial court. He did not deny his marriage with respondent No. 1, nor the fact that the respondent No. 2 Shakshi born out of the wedlock. What is pleaded is that the economic condition of the revisionist is bad, and he is hardly able to maintain himself. It is also pleaded by him that he had already filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the wife (respondent No. 1).
5. The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing them, held that the income of the revisionist could be assessed between Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. It also found that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were unable to maintain themselves. As such, the trial court directed that Narender Singh Choudary (present revisionist) shall pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife (respondent No. 1), and Rs. 500/- per month to his daughter (respondent No. 2).
6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a poor person and cannot pay the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court. Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that it is not denied by the revisionist that he is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2. It has also come on the record that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have no means to maintain themselves. It has also come on the record that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are living separately from the revisionist in compelling circumstances. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed no error of law by directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife, and Rs. 5 00/- per month to his minor daughter. It is not denied that the revisionist used to do the dairy business earlier. Though, he has pleaded that now he is no more doing the dairy business, but it is clear that he is an able person who can earn not less than Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, as assessed by the trial court, by doing any work of which he has an experience. He cannot escape liability by leaving his wife and minor child who have no income of their own. This Court does not find any reason to reduce the amount directed to be paid as maintenance by the trial court to the respondents No. 1 and 2.
7. For the reasons as discussed above, this revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with the observation that the revisionist may be allowed to pay the arrears of the maintenance to the respondents No. 1 and 2 in six monthly installments, within a period of six months.