1. Heard Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Kasganj in Case No. 435 of 2014 (Smt. Minakshi Vs. Vineet Kumar), whereby the application of the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application.

3. The impugned judgment and order has been assailed by the revisionist on the ground that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not considered the source of maintenance possessed by the revisionist-husband and has committed gross error by granting excessive amount of maintenance to the opposite party no.2-wife, because his parents are also dependant upon his earning and more so, has awarded the maintenance from the date of the application without giving any cogent reasons.

4. The brief facts of the case of the opposite party no.2-wife is that admittedly the opposite party no.2, Smt. Minakshi was married to the revisionist Vineet Kumar on 13.03.2013, according to Hindu rites. She was ill-treated by her husband and in-laws, during the period she remained in her in-laws house. Thereafter, on 18.08.2013, the revisionist-husband and in-laws of the opposite party no.2-wife, turned her out from her in-laws house only with her bare clothes. The father and other family members of the opposite party no.2-wife tried to mediate in the matter, but her husband and other in-laws misbehaved with them and they, time and again, demanded dowry, since she was residing in her parental house and the revisionist-husband did not care for her maintenance. She is unable to maintain herself and for this she is dependant upon her father. According to the opposite party no.2-wife, the revisionist/her husband is employed as Wireless Operator, Police Control Room, Unnao and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and therefore, she claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her maintenance.

5. After exchange of pleadings, recording and filing of evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj decided the matter on 21.09.2016 by awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- to the opposite party no.2-wife from the date of the application, i.e., 20.11.2014.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist-husband preferred this revision on the aforesaid grounds.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 are the husband and wife. The opposite party no.2-wife had filed an application against the revisionist-husband, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for providing her maintenance, being Criminal Case No. 435 of 2014, before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, which was allowed, vide an order dated 21.09.2016, Where by the maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the opposite party no.2-wife, which is illegal and against the law, since the revisionist-husband is simply a Wireless Operator in Police Control Room and getting salary of only Rs. 20,384/- per month. It is further submitted that his parents are also dependent upon him, therefore, in the afore said meagre salary, the maintenance as awarded aforesaid is excessive as well as not affordable by the revisionist-husband and hence, is required to be set aside.

8. Learned A.G.A. has disputed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the order impugned has been passed after considering the entire facts and evidence on record, which suffers from no illegality or in firmity in law and therefore, calls no interference by this Court.

9. I have heard rival contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned AGA and perused t