Amar Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2010, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 (Smt. Surbhi Agrawal vs. Punit Agrawal), under section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly whereby the application of the revisionist-applicant Surbhi Agrawal moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, was rejected.

2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this revision are that an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by Surbhi Agrawal alias Sunita stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 Punit Kumar Agrawal as per Hindu rites and rituals on 24.4.2004. From the date of the marriage, the opposite party no. 2 and her-in-law used to raise demand of Rs. 2 lacs and motorcycle in dowry and, on non-fulfillment of the said demand, they used to beat the applicant- revisionist. They also used to sarcast taunting remark by saying that she occasionally talked with outsider without any hesitation and also impute un-chastity with allegation of gazing the white washner and carpenter etc. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members used to beat and harass her for non-fulfillment of the dowry. It is further averred that father of the opposite party no. 2 was an Administrative Officer in Civil Court in Bareilly and due to creating pressure on the Police Officer, the police has not submitted the real report during mediation. The Police personnel obtained her signature later on and in collusion with opposite party, submitted his false report with respect that she is not willing to live with her husband. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members for sake of dowry also disgraced her and made severe bar upon her freedom. The opposite party no. 2 did not keep her with love and affection rather to beat her. At least, she was ousted also from the house of the husband. The opposite party no. 2 having sufficient mean as he is operating Dharam Kata and also doing business at large scale of Ghee and sugar and earns Rs. 1 lac per month whereas applicant-revisionist is unable to maintain herself.

3. The opposite party no. 2 denied the allegation and stated that applicant did not perform the marital relation with husband and also did not make a physical relation with him. On being made attempt to make physical relation she used to threat to commit suicide by cutting the artery of the wrist. He did not throw out her from the house whilest she on her free will has gone with his brother to her house. It is also stated that on 11.1.2005 Radha, sister of applicant-Surbhi Agrawal had come to bring of her papers of academic career for applying service in Allahabad. The opposite party no. 2 is willing to live with her wife as he has filed suit for restitution of conjugal right under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but she refused to live with him.

4. After hearing the parties learned Principal Family Judge and evaluating the evidence comes to the conclusion that applicant-revisionist is living separately without sufficient cause and, therefore, rejected the application.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant came up in this revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

7. Sri V. Kumar, learned Advocate, has filed Parcha on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 but he has neither filed counter affidavit nor turned up.

8. I have perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has been ousted from the house by her husband on non-fulfillment of dowry i.e. Rs. 2 lacs and one motor cycle. The husband-opposite party no. 2 and her-in-law used to sarcast taunting remark by saying that she is educated lady and also keep gazing eyes on outsider occasionally. The revisionist has no means to support her livelihood whereas her husband is