Mukhtar Ahmad, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is the order dated 1.1.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family, Court Banda in case No. 43/IX/13 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Whereby opposite party No. 2. Smt. Sandhya has been allowed maintenance @ Rs. 3000/ - per month from the date of moving the application and her minor daughters Km. Muskan and Km. Chunnua @ Bauwa each @ Rs. 2000/ - per month each.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by Smt. Sandhya against her husband Arvind Kumar @ Bhoora for providing maintenance to her and her two daughters aforesaid. It was asserted in the application that Smt. Sandhya was married with Arvind Kumar on 2.3.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs; that she performed all the duties and liabilities as a faithful wife; that from the wedlock two daughters Km. Muskan and Km. Chunnua @ Bauwa were born; that sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but her in -laws were not satisfied and her husband started mental and physical torture. He snatched her all the ornaments; that on 30.10.2006 her father took her to his home and since then she is residing in her parental home; that revisionist has a Kerana shop, besides agricultural holdings is also there from which he earn about Rs. 15,000/ - per month. It was also apprehended that the applicant has danger to her life if she lives with the revisionist. On this ground maintenance was claimed. Revisionist Arvind Kumar @ Bhoora has filed his written statement, in which he admitted the marriage with opposite party No. 2 and borning out both the daughters, but other facts regarding demand of dowry and danger to her life were denied. He also asserted that her wife has refused to live with him; that on 4.10.2006 she had gone with all the ornaments to her parental house and thereafter she did not return to his house despite his best efforts. It was also stated that he is still ready to keep her with him even with full guarantee of safely.
(3.) IN oral evidence Smt. Sandhya produced herself as P.W. 1 while her father Parsadi Lal Sahu was examined as P.W. 2. In documentary evidence educational certificate of her daughter were filed.;