- (1.) V. D. Chaturvedi, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-6-2005 passed by Sri R. P. Misra, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 21 of 2005, Nishi Tripathi v. Chandra Shekhar Tripathi, whereby he has allowed the petition moved under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and has awarded the maintenance allowance to respondent No. 2 (Smt. Nishi Tripathi) at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month payable by the revisionist. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this revision are that Smt. Nishi Tripathi (respondent No. 2) filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. against Chandra Shekhar Tripathi (revisionist) stating therein that her marriage with Chandra Shekhar Tripathi was held on 26-1-2000 according to Hindu rites and rituals; that after her marriage, Chandra Shekhar Tripathi and his family members demanded a cash of Rs. 50,000/- and a motor cycle in dowry; that they retained her ornaments and sent her to her paternal house; that when she went again to her in-laws' house alongwith her father, she was ill-treated and misbehaved by Chandra Shekhar Tripathi and other members of his family; that on 12-5-2002 the (Chandra Shekhar Tripathi) had beaten her and turned her out of his house; that since then she was residing at her paternal house; that she had no means to maintain herself and that her husband was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as he was an Accountant and Law Advisor in several renowned business firms; that his father retired after holding a high post in Birla factory and was getting pension. She prayed for a maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month and also prayed for a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. The revisionist in his reply (in Court below) admitted his marriage with Nishi Tripathi but denied the allegation of demand of dowry. He stated that Smt. Nishi Tripathi went, on her own accord, to her paternal house with her father and uncle; that the revisionist was always ready and willing to keep her with him; that Nishi Tripathi had passed computer course and knew short hand writing and was serving in a business company at Kanpur; that she was not willing to live with him; that the pension of his father was only Rs. 648/- per month; that it was Nishi Tripathi, who had deserted him; that although he was M. A. , LL. B but he was not earning. After receiving the affidavits and after receiving the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court awarded the maintenance allowance at the above mentioned rate from the date of the petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri K. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nand Lal Maurya, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and have also perused the record of the case. The learned Counsel for Revisionist contended that there was ample evidence that Smt. Nishi Tripathi was earning Rs. 3,000 per month from her service in Gopal Sales Corporation Kahukothi, Kanpur; that the evidence was not enough to hold that the revisionist was earning any amount more than Rs. 800/- per month; that the revisionist was ready and willing to keep respondent No. 2 with him.;