Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against an ex-parte judgment and order dated 21.01.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, in criminal case No. 680 of 2006, Smt. Seema Gupta and Another Vs. Dr. Harendra Kumar Gupta, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. New Agra, District Agra, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Seema Gupta and Rs. 3000/- per month to master Manan alias Mohit by way of maintenance.
(2.) The facts as mentioned in the impugned judgement itself are as follows:-
(3.) The opposite party No. 2 had married the revisionist in February, 1995 according to Hindu rites, whereafter they started residing on the first floor of K.N. Hospital, bypass road, Agra, where out of wedlock, one child was born on 16.7.1999 in the hospital of the revisionist, who is made opposite party No. 3 and now he was studying in Class 1, in St Georges' College, Agra. Post marriage, the conduct of the revisionist transformed absolutely and started harassing and abusing the opposite party No. 2 and would say that he could not live with one woman as he had various women in his life and that he had been fed up with her. On 22.04.2000, he forcibly ousted the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 after beating them, since thereafter both of them were staying in the house of parents of the opposite party No. 2 with her brothers and mother. The revisionist was an M.B.B.S., D.L.O. M.S., a highly qualified E.N.T. surgeon, who was owner of KN Hospital, Agra from where he had monthly income of about Rs.1,00,000/-. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 had no source of income and was compelled to stay with her widowed mother and brothers. There was an expenditure incurred in the form of tuition fees, uniform, school van etc., which was required to be met, for which minimum 3500/- per month was required. In such circumstances the opposite party No. 2 should be provided Rs. 5000/- for herself and Rs. 5000/- for her son, opposite party No. 3, by way of maintenance from the revisionist. 3. It is revealed from the impugned order that after service upon the revisionist, written statement was filed from his side and thereafter he became absent, which led the lower Court to proceed ex-parte against him.;