PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Achal Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) This revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.08.2012, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, in Maintenance Case No. 465 of 2000 (Smt. Seema Bajpaye and others vs. Sri Shailendra Bajpaye), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which, the learned family judge has rejected the application of revisionist no. 1 for maintenance, whereas, the application for maintenance in favour of revisionist no. 2 has been allowed for a payment of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to her.
(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has been filed on the ground that earlier the appellate court has passed the order of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month to each of the revisionist but only on the basis of statement of the husband, opposite party no. 2, that the revisionist no. 1 is running a tailoring shop, the same was deleted and maintenance to the revisionist no. 1 was refused. Infact, she is not running any tailoring shop and has no source of livelihood. She is totally dependent upon her father, who is 73 years old. This fact has also not been considered that the husband has admitted that he has remarried, the application for maintenance was wrongly rejected by misreading the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned order, so far as, the maintenance to the revisionist no. 1 has been refused, is liable to be set aside, as such, she is entitled for maintenance, as prayed by her. Before the learned family court, an application was given from the side of wife claiming Rs. 5000/- per months as maintenance for her and Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance for her daughter alleging that both the parties were married on 27.04.1996 according to Hindu rituals. Despite enough dowry was given and enough money was being spent in the marriage, the husband and his relatives were dissatisfied and she was being harassed. The husband and his relatives were insisting her to bring more dowry. Finally on 08.09.1999, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house after committing maar-peet with her and it was said to her that unless she brings Rs. 30,000/- as cash and one Hero Honda Motorcycle, she will not be accommodated. The wife is a domestic woman and except some domestic work, she has no other skill for earning and there was no other source of income. The husband has two school buses and one tempo and is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. ;