Narendra Kumar Johari, J. - (1.) The present revision has been filed by revisionist- Raj Kumari against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2016 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Agra in Criminal Case No.812 of 2014 "Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Daya Sankar" under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(2.) The revisionist challenged the order under revision mainly on two grounds:- (a) the Sub-ordinate Court has awarded the amount of maintenance from the date of order which is not proper, it should be from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; (b) the amount of compensation fixed by the court is meagre and is liable to be enhanced. The brief fact of the case is that revisionist is wife and opposite party no.2 is husband. It has been mentioned that the revisionist was married with opposite party no.2 on 16.2.2010, at the time of marriage, father of the revisionist had given sufficient articles as dowry like jewelries and cash amount Rs.50,000/- as according to his capacity but opposite party no.2 and the family members of opposite party no.2 were not satisfied by the dowry given by father of the revisionist. They were demanding motor-cycle and Rs.50,000/- cash as additional dowry. In furtherance and their demand opposite party no.2 and his family members were started torturing to the revisionist. In continuance of her torture, on 23.5.2014 opposite party no.2 and his family members locked to revisionist and her sister Sanju in a room, beaten and threaten for life. On the same date opposite party dropped to revisionist and her sister near St. John's Chauraha, Agra and told that unless his aforesaid demand of dowry fulfill she will stay to his father's home. Further on 12.9.2014 father of revisionist reached at the residence of opposite party no.2 alongwith his relatives for compromise. Opposite party no.2 and their family members again demanded motor-cycle and cash money as additional dowry and started abusing. The opposite party and his family member also not accepted to revisionist at their residence. After her desertion, opposite party no.2 has neither taken any care of revisionist, nor given any money for her maintenance. Opposite party no.2 is doing the business of ornament making and earns Rs.50,000/-. He possess some agricultural land also. His income from agricultural land is Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. The revisionist is a domestic lady. She is not doing any work and absolutely depend on her father. The revisionist prayed that she may be provided Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance from her husband.
(3.) During the proceedings in trial court, notice for appearance was issued to opposite party which was served on him but he did not appeared and the court proceed ex-party against him.;