1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 04.06.2014 passed by Family Court, Kaushambi in Criminal Case No. 125 of 2013, Smt. Mausami Singh Vs. Vijay Narayan Singh, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. allowing Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2.

3. Briefly stated facts are that opposite party no. 2 Smt. Mausami Singh is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and marriage was solemnized on 28.02.2008 with Hindu ritual and rites. The revisionist (husband) is an employee in Army. The husband and his family members are not satisfied with the dowry and demanded from her and her family members additional dowry i.e. santro car and golden chain and when the same was not fulfilled, the opposite party no. 2 (wife) was tortured and harassed by her husband and his family members and due to physical cruelty and harassment for illegal demand of dowry, she got mentally disturbed and fell ill. Further, allegation is that she was left by her father-in-laws near Bairagipur and thereafter she called her brother on phone who took her to her Maika. She is unable to maintain herself whereas her husband earns Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary and Rs. 2,00000/- per year from Agriculture. Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance was prayed by the wife of the revisionist.

4. Revisionist (husband) has filed objection against the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. denying all the allegations of the application and alleged that opposite party no. 2 (wife) has not discharged her conjugal duties and further alleged that she was mentally ill prior to her marriage and this fact has been concealed by her family members at the time of marriage. Her behaviour was abnormal and aggressive. She even attempted to kill him by knife. Further alleged that he medically treated her in Lucknow and Agra mental hospital. It is further alleged that she has not discharged the marital duties but admitted this fact that he is in Army and his salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month.

5. In support of the application, opposite party no. 2 Smt. Mausami Singh examined herself as PW1 and Shakuntala (mother of the opposite party no. 2) as PW2.

6. No evidence either oral or documentary has been produced by the revisionist's (husband) side.

7. It is contended on behalf of revisionist that impugned judgement and order is against the weight of evidence on record. It is further contended that parents of opposite party no. 2 has concealed the mental ailment of opposite party no. 2. It is further contended that after marriage she was examined by the doctor regularly and when her treatment was going on at Lucknow, she eloped by her parents and gone to her Maika.

8. Revisionist filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court, Kanpur Nagar which was decreed ex parte on 02.03.2012. Against the said decree opposite party no. 2 had filed a restoration application under Order IX Rule XIII C.P.C. and thereafter with a mala fide intention just to harass the revisionist the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed. It is further contended that revisionist is ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 as wife in spite of that her mental condition is too serious. It is further contended that revisionist has got the liability of his old mother, father and three unmarried sister and he has no income except the service salary as he is landless person. It is further contended that award of maintenance is too excessive and the maintenance awarded from the date of application and the income of the revisionist has not been proved. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 04.06.2014.

9. Per contra learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 contended that opposite party no. 2 is living in her Maika due to the harassment and torture being given to her by her husband and his family members as illegal demand of a Santro car and 5 tola gold chain has no