Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 137 of 2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district-Jhansi.

2. The opposite parties filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance on the ground that Smt. Sofia Bano was married to Mohd. Asif Siddiqui on 1.11.1998 and by the wedlock of the parties, one son Mohd. Saif and one daughter Km. Manal were born. The opposite party-husband demanded more dowry and committed cruelty with the applicant-wife and leaving behind the applicant-wife, the husband-respondent went to Saudi Arab. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 was also sent to Saudi Arab on 17.11.2000 but the opposite party sent back the applicant to India on 23.11.2003. Again the family members of the applicant sent the applicant to Dubai on 9.9.2004 but the respondent sent back again the applicant on 30.9.2004. The family members of the opposite parties sent the applicant and her both children to her maternal home. The opposite party is working as Electrical Engineer in Dubai (UAE) and he is getting a salary of Rs. 2 lacs per month.

3. The petition was contested by the opposite party and denied the allegations of extra dowry. The opposite party has taken the ground that because the applicant was pregnant, so, she could not have the Visa. It was also alleged that there was interference by the parents of the applicant due to which he has divorced his wife on 22.4.2006, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any maintenance and the respondent is ready to bear the expenses of education of his children and he is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. It was also alleged that the applicant is working as teacher in a private school and she is getting Rs. 5000/- as salary. Apart from it, she also earns a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month by tuition.

4. After recording the evidence of both the parties, learned family Court Judge came to the conclusion that husband-opposite party is earning a salary of Rs. 2 lacs per month and accordingly granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicant-wife and Rs. 5000/- per month to both of the minor children.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that because the applicant has already divorced Opposite Party No. 1 on 22.4.2006, hence, in accordance with Muslim Sariat, the application or maintenance was not maintainable. It has also been submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 is an earning member and is working as a teacher and she is not unable to maintain herself. It has also been argued that the revisionist is still ready to bear the educational expenses of both the children. But the learned lower Court has not considered this aspect. It has also been submitted that the monthly salary of the revisionist is Rs. 20,000/- per month while the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month has been granted to all the respondents which is excessive.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has submitted that the revisionists had neglected his wife and children and the wife has no source of income and she is residing with her parents. It has also been submitted that the revisionist has remarried on 26.11.2009 with Smt. Nazma daughter of Yunus but the revisionist has not disclosed about his second marriage before the family Court. It has also been submitted that the revisionist is an Electrical Engineer and is highly paid and in view of rising price of everything, the amount of maintenance is on the lower side.

7. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter was referred to High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and interim settlement agreement took place on 14.10.2008 but the revisionist had not complied with the terms and conditions of the interim settlement agreement and has not provided accommodation to