The court upheld the wife's claim for maintenance based on the husband's demand for dowry, cruel treatment, and remarriage, and found the amount of maintenance fixed by the Family court to be reasonable.

This revision application is directed against the order and judgment dated 20-7-1992 passed by Sri Y. S. Raizada Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1027 of 1991

- Smt. Meena Devi v. Harpal under Section 125, Cr. P. C. whereby the allowed the application and fixed a sum of rupees 300 per month as he amount of maintenance to be paid by the revisionist to her every month w. e. f. the date of the filing of her application dated 27-6-1991. Feeling aggrieved that husband preferred this revision application.

2. It was admitted case of both the parties that the revisionist was married with O. P. No. 1 Smt. Meena Devi in a legal and valid manner and had lived peacefully, thereafter, for some time as husband and wife. The rela tions, thereafter had become strained as the revisionist used to make demand for more and more dowry. One such demand was for rupees 20,000 from her father to her husband but it was not fulfilled as a result of which the revi sionist had started treating her in a very cruel manner and ultimately had turned her out of his house. She also had filed a First Information Report on 30-6-1990 when she had been turned out at P. S. Keela in town, Bareilly. Her husband, thereafter did not brother to take care of her and sometime later had remarried Smt. Kiran Devi in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Her husband had got income of about Rs. 3000 per month which included rental income as well as agricultural income of his share. The wife being illiterate was not in a position to maintain herself. Finding no other remedy she had moved the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C.

3. The husband had contested the claim of his wife and denied all the allegations except factum of his marriage. He also showed that he had got very meagre income and the amount of maintenance claimed by his wife from him was too excessive. She herself was in a position to maintain her by earning money by stitching, knitting and manual labour.

4. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contention the wife examined herself as PW 1 and Shyam Lal as PW 2. The husband examined himself and a lady Smt. Chandrawati as PW land PW 2. The wife had filed a photostat copy of the proposal which her hasband and Smt. Kiran Devi had filed on 22-6-1990 before the Marriage Officer for their marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act as well as the First information Report lodged by Sri Vodram, who was the husband of Smt. Kiran Devi against her husband under Section 498, IPC on 28-7-1990. The documents from the revenue record were also filed by her to show that her husband had got agriculutural land. She also filed extract from the tax register from the Municipal Corporation for the year 1977 which showed that her father-in-law had got house property income of which was shared by her husband as well.

5. I heard the submissions put forward on behalf of both the parties and also perused the impugned judgment carefully, I do not find any manifest illegality by the learned lower court while appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties before him. After taking into consideration the documentary evidence already mentioned above he had rightly arrived at the conclusion that her husband had |remarried |smt. Kiran Devi. She, therefore, was justified in living separately from her husband and also for getting maintenance from him. The family court Judge also rightly held that the husband had started treating his first wife in a very cruel manner his demand for more money could not be fulfilled by her |father. He ultimately turned her out from his house. It was also in evidence that a male child was born out of the wedlock between Smt. Kiran Devi and revisionist Harpal.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the amount of maintenace of rupees 300 per month fixed by the Family court was excessive, did not carry force. The learned family court had r