The main legal point established is that a husband is obligated to maintain his wife, and the wife is entitled to maintenance if she is neglected or mistreated, as per section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Amar Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. None appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

2. The revisionist Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, has preferred this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 27 of 2013 (Arpana Dwivedi v. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party No. 2 (Wife) from the date of application i.e. 09.01.2013.

3. Brief facts which give rise to the present revision are that an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code of 1973’) was moved by Aparna Dwivedi on behalf of her claiming maintenance on the ground that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with her as per Hindu rites and rituals on 05.06.2010. The father of the opposite party No. 2 after taking loan from his friends and relatives solemnized the marriage of his lovely daughter with the revisionist and spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/-. The lust of dowry was not fulfilled and just after the marriage the revisionist as well as his in-laws started demanding more dowry e.g. Passion Pro Motorcycle (Hero Honda) and Rs. 2,00000/- cash and for that they were used to torture her. Not only, this the revisionist and their parents snatched the jewelry valuing Rs. 2,00,000/- which was given by her father in the marriage and on 16.08.2012 they have given house hold items by her father to the brother of revisionist namely Sushil Kumar Dwivedi. Still the atrocities of the revisionist and his parents on the opposite party No. 2 not ended and on 04.12.2012 at 3: 00 pm the revisionist along with other family members, after hatching conspiracy beaten her by stick, kick and fist and after snatching her cloth asked her to leave their house and also gave scold that until she brought motorcycle and Rs. 2,00,000/- she would not be permitted to enter in their house.

4. The injuries received by the opposite party No. 2 were got examined. Thus it is wrong to say that the opposite party No. 2 just after the marriage started pressurizing the revisionist to live separately. On that too, the opposite party No. 2 tried to calm down the situation, but all in vain and when she found that there is no way to her at least she filed Case No. 27 of 2013 (Aparna Dwivedi v. Sushil Kumar Dwivedi) U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. Learned Principal Family Judge, after hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence produced, allowed the application and granted maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 (Wife) from the date of application.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist came up before this Court in this revision.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party No. 2 used to build pressure upon the revisionist to live separate and when he refused to live separate, she started harassing and humiliating the family members of the revisionist. It is also stated that the ex-parte order dated 27.11.2014 is absolutely illegal and liable to be set-aside by this Hon’ble Court because the revisionist had no knowledge about the above mentioned case and no notice or summon has been served to him, therefore, he could not appear the court concerned and ex-parte order has been passed. Learned Principal Judge (Family court), Agra wrongly appreciated the evidence and passed the order in vague and cursory manner.

7. It is contended in the affidavit filed by learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 2 is an unemployed, having no source of income, she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the revisionist is a teacher and the monthly salary of revisionist is more than Rs. 25,000/-. Except that he is imparting