S.C. Das, J.

1. By this application, filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner challenged the judgment & order, dated 08.10.2012, passed by learned Judge-in-Charge, Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura in Case No. Cr. Misc./FC/UDP/38/2012. Heard learned counsel, Mr. T. Datta Majumder for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. S. Majumder for the respondent.

2. The respondent, being the wife of petitioner, filed an application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur praying for granting her maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month from her husband, the petitioner herein. She stated that she has no independent source of income and that her husband is working as a Teacher under the Government of Tripura and drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month and having such source of income her husband is not paying any maintenance to her.

The petitioner, being the husband, contested the case denying the allegations made by respondent-wife and stated that the respondent-wife deserted him and refused to live with him and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.

Learned Judge-In-Charge, Family Court, by impugned judgment & order, dated 08.10.2012, granted maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife herein.

Being aggrieved the present revisional application is filed contending that the wife since deserted the husband (petitioner) is not entitled to get maintenance and that the amount of maintenance is excessive and disproportionate to the income of the petitioner.

3. It is contented by learned counsel, Mr. Datta Majumder that the petitioner is a Teacher in 'Sharba Shiksha Mission' and drawing a monthly emolument of Rs. 8,500/- and he has his old and ailing parents, depending upon him and so, the amount of compensation, as awarded, is excessive and harsh. He has further contended that the respondent wife deserted the petitioner and several attempts were made by the petitioner to take her back but she refused. Since she voluntarily left the matrimonial home she is not entitled to get maintenance.

4. Learned counsel, Mr. Majumder, on the other hand, contended that the respondent-wife in her petition, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and in her deposition categorically stated that monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs. 10,000/- and such statement of the respondent-wife was neither denied in the written statement nor controverted in the deposition of the husband-petitioner and, therefore, taking into account the income of the petitioner, learned Judge-In-Charge, Family Court has rightly directed the payment of maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month which should not be reduced. He further contended that the petitioner-husband always ill-treated the respondent-wife in the matrimonial home and thereby made the matrimonial life of the respondent miserable and ultimately, she was driven out from the matrimonial home which is evident from the material on record. Learned counsel also submitted that in the written statement of the respondent in Para 11 an allegation of adultery has been falsely made against the respondent-wife which shows the mental state of the petitioner-husband towards his wife. She has been consistently ill-treated by the husband in the matrimonial home.

5. A revisional Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record, unless it is shown that findings of the Court below is perverse and that there is no supporting legal evidence on record to support the judgment/order. The Court is also not required to re-appreciate the evidence on record, on the points already decided by the trial Court unless the order suffers from illegality, impropriety or incorrectness and/or the proceeding is irregular.

6. The purpose of incorporating the provisions regarding maintenance of wives, children and parents in Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code is to prevent vagrancy and to ensure maintenance to the deserving wives, children or parents at the earliest without having pro