RAJESH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) REVISIONIST Brij Behari has flied this revision against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh allowing the application of the opposite party Smt. Kusum Lata (hereinafter referred to as applicant) moved under section 125 Cr.P.C for providing maintenance to her and her two children against the revisionist Brij Behari (hereinafter referred to as opposite party). In brief the facts of the case are that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata for herself and for her minor daughters applicants No. 2 and 3 filed a petition against the opposite party Brij Behari under section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance. It was alleged in the application that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata was mar­ried to opposite party Brij Behari 8 to 9 years ago and during this wedlock two daughters, namely, Beenu and Nishoo were born. However, after the birth of these daughters, the opposite party started treating the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata with cruelty. She was abused and was beaten off and on about 8 to 9 months be­fore filing of the application under section 125 Cr. P.C. the opposite party turned the applicant out of the marital home and threatened that he will have a second mar­riage. The applicant Smt. Kusum Lata came to her parental house and narrated the en­tire story. Her father and brother along with other village people went to the house of the opposite party and attempted to pur­sued the opposite party not to extend cru­elty to the applicant but all went in vain. Opposite party categorically repeated that he will not keep the applicant with him as he is having relations with the daughter of Atbaru, resident of Bhavtar. The applicant further mentioned that since then she is living at the house of her parents and is unable to maintain herself and her chil­dren. According to the applicant, the op­posite party Brij Behari owns agricultural land and is practising as a Doctor. He is earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. She requested that Rs. 2000/- p.m. may be paid as maintenance for herself and her chil­dren.
(2.) OPPOSITE party filed his written statement alleging therein that he is un­employed and is not doing any work. He never beat the applicant nor turned her out of the marital home nor refused to keep her with him. He is ready to keep the applicant and the two daughters with him. His fur­ther contention is that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata is working in a private school and is earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. He made accusation against the applicant that she is having illicit relations with her brother-in-law Hari Lal and it is at the be­hest of Hari Lal that the maintenance appli­cation has been filed just to harass the op­posite party. It was also informed that the opposite party has filed a suit for Restitu­tion of Conjugal Rights and another suit under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody, of the two daughters. The applicant Kusum Lata examined herself as APW1 and Durjan as APW2. The opposite party Brij Behari ex­amined himself as OPW1, Hari Prasad as OPW2 and Ashok Kumar as OPW3. The learned lower Court after consider­ing the evidence came to the conclusion that the applicant Smt. Ksum Lata was having valid reasons for living separately, she is not having any income to maintain herself and her daughters and further that the opposite party Brij Behari is having that much income that he can easily part with Rs. 2,000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and daughters. It is against this order dated 9.5.2006 that the revision has been filed. In the revision, I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. The notice of the revision was served upon opposite party Smt. Kusum Lata but she did not appear. Learned Counsel for the revisionist ar­gued that the learned Lower Court has given an illegal finding that the opposite party has married another girl as there was no evidence on record to come to that con­clusion. It was also argued that the opposite party Brij Behari was always willing to keep his wife with him along with two daughters. The applicant herself was not willing to live with the opposite party. The opposite party even filed a suit under sec­tion 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the Restitution of Conjugal Rights and also moved the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the two daughters so that they may be maintained properly. The learned lower Court without considering these facts recorded finding against the opposite party and wrongly allowed the maintenance to the applicant. It was further argued that the maintenance awarded to the applicants is excessive and the opposite party is not in a position to pay mat much amount to the applicants. His contention is that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record with re­gard to the income of the opposite party and in these circumstances the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month is highly excessive.
(3.) LEARNED AGA in reply argued that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court. The Court after considering the evidence produced by the applicants as well as other evidence available on the record rightly came to the conclusion that the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata is living separately for good reasons and she is not having any income to maintain herself and her two daughters. His further contention is that it is proved on record that the opposite party has sufficient income and is in a position to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicants for their maintenance.;