PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 Crpc, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16. 07. 2002 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short `the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 445/1999 whereby the Trial Court on an application filed by respondent under Section 125 Crpc awarded maintenance in favour of respondent and against the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month w. e. f. 11. 06. 1999, the date of filing of the application.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 11. 06. 1999, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Crpc seeking maintenance on the ground that she is legally wadded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner though having sufficient means, neglected to maintain her. The case as set up by the respondent is that the married to the petitioner on 02. 03. 1995 according to the Hindu rites, her father gave dowry including furniture etc. However, subsequently, she was harassed on account of less dowry. She was harassed and pressurized to bring the money form her father upon which her father refused to give Rs. 25,000/- as demanded by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner started giving beating to the respondent. She was turned out from matrimonial home on 02. 10. 1995 and despite all efforts, petitioner did not take the respondent to matrimonial home. On the contrary, he refused to keep the respondent with him. However, the petitioner subsequently contacted second marriage on 22. 01. 1999 and, therefore, it became impossible for the respondent to live with the petitioner. It was further averred that the petitioner is running a motor parts shop and earning Rs. 5000/- per month. Respondent denied the allegations before the Trial court. She appeared herself as AW. 1 and produced AW. 2 Beena and AW. 3 Chaturbhuj. The petitioner in rebuttal, appeared himself as NAW. 1 and produced NAW. 2. Narayn Lal, and NAW. 3 Govind Singh. On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner having sufficient means, refused to maintain the respondent wife. The Trial Court also held that the respondent wife has no source of income and in unable to maintain herself. In her statement, the respondent has stated that she is no undertaking any mean to maintain herself. She needs a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance. On this part of statement made by respondent Seema AW. 1, she was not subjected to cross-examine by the petitioner. The other witness AW. 2 Beena also stated that respondent is not doing any work and is unable to maintain herself. She denied that the respondent is undertaking the work of tailoring and earning Rs. 100/- per day. The other witness AW. 3 Chaturbhuj also made a similar statement that the respondent in unable to maintain herself and has not been doing any work. AW. 2 and AW. 3 consistently stated that the petitioner is having a shop o motor parts at village Sukher and earning Rs. 5000/- per month from the shop of motor parts. Petitioner himself appeared and stated that he is not doing anything and denied having undertaken any vocation/business either prior to marriage or after the marriage. However, petitioner produced NAW. 2 Narayan Lal, who has stated that petitioner is having three mulching cows and he is a milk vendor. The other witness produced by the petitioner is NAW. 3 Govind Lal. He has stated that petitioner is earning Rs. 30-35/- per day by working in a factory. The Trial Court held that petitioner deliberately made an attempt to conceal his income by saying that he is not earning anything, whereas from the statements of the witnesses produce by the petitioner, it has been established that the petitioner is earning and relying on the evidence produced by the respondent, the Trial Court held that the petitioner is earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and despite having sufficient means to maintain the respondent, he neglected the refused to maintain her. Therefore, the Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance in favour of respondent. On close scrutiny of evidence produced by the parties, I am of the view that the Trial Court was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance in favour of respondent wife. It has been established by the evidence that the petitioner is having sufficient means. Despite having sufficient means, he refused to maintain the respondent wife and neglected her. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. .;