Hon’ble N.A. Moonis. J.—The present revision has been preferred by Smt. Kalpana Ojha against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2009 passed by Sri Taj Bahadur Singh, Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Allahabad whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist was rejected by the Judge Family Court, Allahabad in Case No. 203 of 2004 (Kalpana Ojha v. Rama Lala Ojha) and the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month was granted to the minor daughter Mukta from the date of the application.

2. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the revisionist was legally wedded wife of the opposite party Ram Lala Ojha. Their marital ceremony was performed on 21.2.2000 in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. There was no bickering between the husband and wife at the time of marriage. Sufficient dowry was given to the opposite party by the parents of the revisionist. The revisionist was also discharging her marital obligations without any rift. The in-laws, husband and other family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of the marriage. They were exerting undue pressure upon the revisionist to fetch more dowry so that the opposite party (husband) may open coaching institute. Inability was shown on the part of parents of the revisionist ,the revisionist was humiliated and tortured. She had to face the brunt of the husband and in-laws. In the meantime ,a girl baby was borne out of their union but the in-laws and the husband did not abandon the habit of persecuting her. A gram panchayat was held at the instance of the father of the revisionist to bring an end to their marital bickering but the in-laws and the husband did not concede to the suggestions of the gram panchayat and revisionist went on bearing the brunt of the in-laws and the husband. She was brutally beaten on the issue of dowry as her parents could not fulfil their more demand of dowry. Out of chagrin, the revisionist left the marital house and decided to live with her parents. She filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance for self as well as her minor daughter. On the other hand husband filed a suit for divorce in which written statement was filed on behalf of the wife. She contested the suit and filed application narrating the entire episode of the dowry ,torture and mis-behaviour and also their ill-will to usurp the entire dowry given at the time of marriage. It was averred by her that she was totally dependant upon her parents who were providing amenities to the best of their capabilities for the maintenance of revisionist and her minor daughter from 2003. Her father had retired from service. He did not have sufficient means to contest the suit filed by the husband. Her parents were hardly arranging both end meals. She was living with her parents and was solely dependant upon them. Since the father of the revisionist had retired from service and was an aged one therefore, she was facing worst days of life as she did not have any source for survival. The husband owns a house and had earning to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- from coaching institute. The opposite party (husband) had also agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 5.00 Lacs per year. The opposite party is absolutely responsible to maintain the revisionist as well as her minor daughter. The revisionist claims Rs. 8,000/- for herself and Rs. 6,000/- for her minor daughter. The opposite party No. 2 filed written statement /objection with regard to factum of marriage denying the demand of dowry. It was also stressed that no such inflated amount was spent at the time of solemnisation of marriage. The revisionist was never harassed or abused for fetching less dowry. The revisionist herself is a mentally retarded lady and had on one occasion assaulted to the opposite party with knife as a result of which he sustained injuries. This incident was duly informed to the father of the revisionist. The revisionist