The court's decision on maintenance was influenced by the husband's commitment to pay, the source of income, and the increased cost of living.

D.K.Sinha,J.

The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Maintenance Case No.30 of 2007.

2. The Opposite Party No. 2 to 5 had initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs.2500/- for the maintenance of the complainant wife-Opposite Party No.2 and further @ Rs.1000/- per month for each of his minor children i.e. the Opposite Party Nos. 3, 4 & 5 total to the tune of Rs.5,500/- per month.

3. It was the admitted case that the petitioner No.1 was married to the Opposite Party No.2 in the year 1991 and from the consumation of marriage, two daughters and one son were born to them, who were the Opposite Party Nos. 3,4 and 5 herein. It was alleged that since 2003 the petitioner and the members of his family started extending torture to the Opposite Party No. 2 on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was demanded by them. She was assaulted by the husband-petitioner on 17.01.2005 and other in laws and in the same sequence certain amount was snatched from her possession. In the meantime, the petitioner solemnized second marriage with one Most. Uma Devi, daughter of Jharkhandi Modi of village Parbatta in the month of January, 2005 with the consent and collusion with the other members of his family. Finally, she was assaulted on 08.02.2005 soon after his second marriage and her jewelleries worth Rs. 10,000/- and cash about Rs.5,000/- were retained by the accused persons. Since then she with her children was living at her parental home. A “Panchayati” was also held but the accused persons abstained and hence Complaint Case No. 119 of 2005 was filed by her for the alleged offence under Section 498A and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the petitioner wherein a compromise was filed on 07.09.2005 during pendency of the Bail Petition No. 801 of 2005 before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh wherein the petitioner-husband undertook to give Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and also promised to deposit Rs.20,000/- in the name of his daughter Sushila Kumari for her marriage in terms of a compromise and then bail was granted to him, yet, after his release from jail he did not adhere to the terms of the compromise. The complainant was a housewife having no independent source of earning and was totally dependant upon her parents with her minor children. The complainant O.P.No.2 claimed that her husband-petitioner had earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his business and Rs.50,000/- per annum from his cultivation and therefore, total sum of Rs. 5,500/- was demanded being the maintenance per month of the complainant and her minor children. The petitioner-husband appeared in the said proceeding. In his causes shown the husband-petitioner admitted his marriage with the Opposite Party No.2. He explained that on 01.05.2004 when he was away from his house the father of the complainant Amir Modi came to his house and took away is wife with the children. It was further alleged that he removed Rs.5000/- in cash and one Alowin automatic wrist watch as also the receipt of the fixed deposit passbook of Rs.12,000/- from his house. When the members of his family protested then the father of the complainant took the complainant away pretending that her mother was ill and that he would return her within a week. When his wife and the children did not return within time stipulated the petitioner-husband filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The complainant did not appear in spite of the receipt of the notice and finally by the order dated 23.04.2005 the case was decided in favour of the husband-petitioner. It was further explained that the demand of dowry was false and concocted and it was also false that Chhotu Modi had assaulted Malti De