Arvind Singh Chandel, J.—With the consent of both the parties, heard finally.

2. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24.08.2023 whereby and where under the learned Family Court, while deciding the application under Section 125 of the Cr P C filed by the opposite party – wife, directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs 20,000/- to the opposite party – wife, and his minor son from the date of submission of application, i.e., 27.02.2019.

3. Undisputedly, opposite party No 1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized in the year, 1986 and from the admission made by the petitioner himself, it is also apparent that as of now, without getting any divorce from the opposite party – wife, he performed his second marriage in the year, 1992.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year, 1989, a girl child was born out of their wedlock and immediately thereafter, the opposite party – wife left the child with the petitioner and went to her Maike and did not return. Thus, it is clear that the opposite party – wife herself left the house of the petitioner and is residing separately since 1989. Therefore, on this ground alone, she is not entitled to get any maintenance as she herself left the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that since the opposite party – wife is residing separately since 1989 and did not return to the house of the petitioner and they have not cohabited, therefore, opposite party No 2 and other male child are not the legitimate or illegitimate sons of the petitioner. Therefore, opposite party No 2 is also not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Family Court, while passing the order of maintenance also did not consider the fact that in the year, 2019 – 2020, the petitioner, who is a Teacher, was getting a monthly salary near about Rs 25,000/- and he has a second wife and two children from his second wife. The learned Family Court directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000/- from the date of submission of aplication is also on much higher side.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party – wife opposes the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the impugned order as well as evidence adduced by both the parties before the learned Family Court.

7. It was the pleading of the petitioner – husband that after the born of girl child in the year 1989, the opposite party -wife herself left the house of the petitioner and did not return in the house of the petitioner and they also did not cohabit thereafter. However, during the cross-examination of the opposite party – wife, on being questioned by the petitioner – side, the opposite party -wife categorically stated that she frequently visited her Sasural but she was ousted after fifteen days after assaulting her and was never kept with care. She further categorically stated that one year prior also, the husband ousted her from his house after assaulting her. The above statement of opposite party – wife has not been duly rebutted nor any contrary suggestion has been made by the petitioner - husband. The petitioner – husband himself admitted the fact that in the year 1992, without getting any divorce from the opposite party – wife, he performed his second marriage with another lady.

8. Thus, from the above admission made by the petitioner himself, the learned Family Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the opposite party – wife has sufficient cause to reside separately with the petitioner – husband. Since the statement of opposite party – wife made in paragraphs 7 and 9 of her cross examination has not been