ORDER

L. Mohapatra, J.- This revision has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge. Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 264 of 1999 for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she married the opposite party on 25-5-1996 according to Hindu rites and custom and led a conjugal life. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party and his family members not being satisfied with the dowry articles received at the time of marriage, demanded cash of Rs. 40,000/- for purchasing a motor cycle and also started ill-treating her due to non-fulfillment of the demand. It is also the case of the petitioner that the opposite party is having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (brother's wife) and neglected her. Due to the ill-treatment and torture the petitioner had to leave t he house and approached the village committee and also lodged an F. I. R. in the local police station alleging commission of offence under S. 498-A of the Penal Code read with S. 4 of the .Dowry Prohibition Act.. Since the local police did not take any action, another F.I.R. was lodged in the Mahila Police Station, Cuttack. Her further case is that the opposite party earns Rs. 4.500/-. from stationery-cum-betel shop and also Rs. 3,000/- from the landed property.

3. The opposite party in his show cause denied the allegations made against him and the case of the opposite party is that the petitioner prior to her marriage was staying in the house of her brother-in-law Tankadhar Panda and after marriage also she continued to visit the house of said Tankadhar Panda in spite of the objection of the opposite party. It is also alleged by the opposite party that he was assaulted by the said Tankadhar Panda on many occasions in presence of the' petitioner and at his instance she started a case against him. So far as income is concerned the specific case of the opposite party is that he has no shop or house and he worked- as a daily labourer and he has no income. The further case of the opposite party is that she left the matrimonial home on her own-will and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance.

4. The learned Judge, Family Court on consideration of the evidence on record found that the petitioner had not left the matrimonial home on her own will and due to circumstances she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and accordingly entitled to maintenance. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court did not accept the evidence led from the side of the petitioner, and held that the opposite party was working as a daily labourer and accordingly granted maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month.

5. Shri Padhi. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the evidence with regard to income of the opposite party is consistent and all the witnesses examined before the Court have stated that the opposite party has income from the betel shop, towards house rent as well as some income from the landed property. The evidence wit regard to income of the opposite party being consistent, there was no occasion for the learned Judge, Family Court to hold that the opposite party was working as daily labourer grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. If evidence of the petitioner and other witnesses examined from her side is accepted, the petitioner (opposite party) should be liable to pay, the amount of maintenance claimed by the petitioner.

6. I have perused the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court as well as the evidence led on both the sides with regard to the income of the opposite party. Though the petitioner who has been examined as P.W. 1 stated in-chief that the opposite party was running a betel shop, in her cross-examination she has stated that the said shop stands on a Government land and she has no document to show that the opposite party is owner of the said shop. Similar is the evidence of the othe