N.DHINAKAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as maintenance per month under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. to Sunil Devi, his wife, who is the opposite party No. 2 in this revision.
(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order of the Family Court, present revision has been filed. The petitioner married opposite party No. 2 on 7.5.1990 according to the Hindu religious customs and rites. Opposite party No. 2, Sunita Devi, was living with the petitioner for some time and thereafter the petitioner started demanding dowry. He also refused to feed her and threatened to kill her. In July 1998, she was chased out of the house and, therefore, she took shelter in the house of her parents, Thereafter, she filed a petition for maintenance before the Family Court alleging that the petitioner being her husband is duty -bound to maintain her. The Family Court awarded maintenance, as stated above.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 before the Family Court in the petition filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are false and that he is ready to live with her, if she is willing to come and join him in his house. He also submits that a sum of Rs. 1,000 awarded as maintenance to opposite party No. 2 is on the higher side, since, according to him, the petitioner is only a labourer.;