Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This revision has been preferred by the revisionist for enhancement of maintenance awarded to her by the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by Principal Jude, Family Court at Moradabad, in Case No. 221/09 of 2007, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt Rekha Rani v. Dilawar Singh) whereby the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- was awarded to the revisionist from the date of application.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision are that the marriage of revisionist was solemnised with opposite party No. 2 Dilawar Singh on 2.2.1998 at Moradabad in accordance with Hindu rites. During course of this marriage, Rs. 51000/- cash, one Hero-honda motor-cycle and several other articles of Jewellery etc were given to the opposite party No. 2 as dowry. Infact the revisionist has estimated that almost Rs. 3 Lacs were spent in the performance of the said marriage. Subsequent to this marriage opposite party No. 2, the husband of the revisionist and his family members started raising demand for Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry. She refused to succumb to their pressure. This resulted in her maltreatment. She was repeatedly subjected to cruelty and harassment. Ultimately her husband left the revisionist-wife to her parental home on 12.7.1998 i.e. within six months of her marriage. The husband of the revisionist, the opposite party No. 2 allegedly threatened the family of revisionist that unless demand of Rs. 50,000/- was fulfilled he would not take the revisionist-wife back to her matrimonial home.

3. To cut the matter short the dispute between the rival parties could not be resolved despite the intervention of other person including Panchayat. Both the parties initiated Court proceedings.

4. The opposite party No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the wife-revisionist initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The dispute even came to the High Court in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No. 36247 of 2010 (Smt Rekha Rani v. State of UP and others) and this Court directed the Court below to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within six months. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the family Court decided the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 8.3.2011 by awarding the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the revisionist wife. The wife was not satisfied with the quantum of award, therefore, she has preferred the present criminal revision for enhancement of maintenance awarded to her.

5. This Court heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State. Despite sufficient service none appeared for the opposite party No. 2-the husband Dilawar Singh. Therefore, this Court was constrained to peruse the record with the help of learned AGA and learned counsel for the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has claimed that the opposite party is a successful advocate practising in the Civil Courts earning almost Rs. 30,000/- per month. He also owns agricultural land and thereby earns Rs. 15,000/- per month from his farm. Therefore, he can very well afford to pay the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

7. But it is apparent that no specific evidence was produced by the revisionist in the family Court for determination of earnings of husband. One paper was produced indicating that the opposite party husband had appeared in one criminal case before the Trial Court. Similarly, Khatauni placed on record does not indicate any vast holding which could yield the income of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the agriculture. No income tax papers were furnished by the revisionist. It is true that it is very difficult to prove such kind of income especially when one is not paying the income tax. It is also true that some sort of guess work has to be done by the Courts to determine the final award but no hard and fast rule or mathematical formula can be evolved for determination of income of any p