KASHI NATH PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS re­vision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 9.12.2002, passed by Sri Mahendra Nath Judicial Magistrate 1st District Bhadohi in Case No. 62 of 2001 Smt. Pramila Devi v. Indrajeet Singh. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate allowed the application under section 125, Cr. P.C. and awarded the maintenance to Smt. Pramila Devi, opposite party No. 2 and her minor child at the rate of Rs. 400/-and Rs. 300/- per month respectively for their maintenance from the date of the judgement dated 9.12.2002. The amount of maintenance to the daughter Jaya is to be paid till her marriage. I have heard Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, holding the brief of Sri H.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist at the stage of admission and have gone through the grounds of revision. The impugned order has been chal­lenged only on the ground of facts. It has not been challenged on account of any er­ror of procedure or substantive law.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revision­ist argued that the learned lower Court did not consider the ground of the revisionist on the point of fact that without any proper reason the opposite party No. 2 is living separately whereas the revisionist is ready to maintain her with her minor daughter. There is no substantive evidence in support of the allegations of the opposite party No. 2 that she was thrown out of the house of the revisionist. There is no any evidence on the point of demand of dowry. They have one son Aditya and daughter Jaya. The son is living with him whereas without any proper reason opposite party No. 2 is living separately with her daughter in her father's house since long. On the point of income of the revisionist there is no evidence. He is doing business of tea shop earning a little amount. For his own maintenance he is dependent upon his father. The revisionist has filed a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which opposite party No. 2 appeared before the Court below and filed her written statement, as such in reaction she has filed the petition under section 125, Cr. P.C. under sub-section 4 of the section 125, Cr. P.C. She is not entitled for any maintenance as without any sufficient rea­son she refused to live with her hus­band/revisionist in spite of best efforts made by the revisionist for keeping her with him. The Court below did not con­sider the statement of the witnesses ad­duced by the revisionist on the point of in­come. The revisionist is ready to maintain his wife/opposite party No. 2 with her daughter Jaya. The Court while exercising the revisional power will not go into the merits of the fact concluded by the learned Trial Court. The Revisional Court can interfere on the point of fact only on the ground of perversity, if the conclusion drawn by the learned lower Court is against the evidence on record, only then on the point of fact the Court of revision can interfere. At the time of argument learned Counsel does not challenge the proceedings on any error of procedure. There is no any error of sub­stantive law. The only ground left for con­sideration is the interference on account of perversity of judgement in none of the grounds of revision. It has been alleged that the conclusion drawn by the learned lower Court is against the evidence on record. There is nothing to hold that the conclusion on the point of fact can be said to be per­verse. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. The marriage of the revisionist with opposite party No. 2 is admitted. It is also admitted that the minor daughter Jaya is their daughter.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petition filed un­der section 125, Cr. P.C. the revisionist and members of his family were not satisfied on account of the non fulfilment of dowry de­mand. They were demanding colour TV, scooter, fridge and Rs. 10,000/- as cash from her parents. They felt ill when she expressed their inability to fulfil the de­mand of dowry. In the result they subjected her to mental and physical torture. They had also snatched her stridhan i.e. clothes, jewellery, Rs. 20,000/- cash. They became more and more aggressive doing inhuman treatment towards her. They used to beat her and threatened to remarry the revision­ist. She was turned out with her daughter Jaya and compelled her to come to her par­ents house.;