JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. The instant Cr. Revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 05 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Additional Family Court, Ranchi allowed the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.16,000/- per month to the opposite party from the date of filing the application.

2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that the Maintenance Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of wife-Rupsi Kaur Chawla against her husband-Harjyot Singh Malhotra with these allegations that she was married with Harjyot Singh Malhotra on 12.04.2015. After marriage both the parties went for Honeymoon to Europe trip. Her husband and his family members compelled her to ask money for the Europe trip. Indeed, the opposite party and his family members were not satisfied with the gifts and dowry given at the time of marriage and used to taunt her using filthy language. The opposite party during the Europe trip began to torture her physically and continued at Firozabad, Delhi, Europe, Pune and Ranchi. A demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and I-10 car was made. Showing reluctance by the applicant and his family members she was subjected to cruelty. The applicant also felt seriously ill on account of mal-treatment given to her and on 3rd January, 2018 she came to Ranchi and since then she is living at Ranchi with her parents. Since 3rd January, 2018 the Opposite Party did not take care of her. The applicant has no income of her own and is exclusively dependent upon her parents. The opposite party is working in dual charge as a Finance Manager in Hanual Technologies Pvt. Ltd. as a Head Project Development in Veggitech (sister concern of Hanual Technologies) and drawing a salary of Rs.3,50,000/- per month. The opposite party has no other liability except to maintain the applicant. As such the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance was claimed.

3. On behalf of opposite-party the written statement was filed in which the averments made by the applicant in the Maintenance Application are denied and in additional plea it is stated that after marriage both parties went to Honeymoon but the entire expenses of the same was borne by the responding-opposite party. The applicant was never taunted or abused for less dowry and was never subjected to cruelty as alleged. The responding opposite party along with applicant left for Paris from Delhi on 27.04.2015. The moment they reached to Paris, the applicant began to quarrel with the responding opposite party on petty and trivial issues. The entire Honeymoon trip was totally spoiled. In Europe tour they visited several countries of Europe. After the Europe trip the brother of the applicant apologized for the behaviour of his sister. The applicant never tried to co-operate the responding opposite party and his family members on account of her petty and trivial issues. The opposite party also took the applicant to Goa on 24.09.2015 with a hope that some change would come in her but misfortunately the same trip was also wasted over the petty issues raised by the applicant. The applicant has been residing separately from the responding opposite party since 03.01.2018 and she herself left the house of the responding opposite party o