JUDGMENT

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 16.9.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur in Misc. Case No. 10/2020 ( Smt. Ramdevi @ Mohini v. Surendra Prajapati ), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Bar, District Lalitpur whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife-respondent no. 2 from the date of judgement.

2. Notice has been served upon the respondent no. 2 as per the report of the C.J.M., concerned, but none appeared to press this revision on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed an application for maintenance against her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with averments that her marriage with opposite party was solemnized on 19.4.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals; her parents had given cash and gifts as per their economic status but her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in her marriage and started demanding of Rs. 02 lakhs as an additional dowry and on non fulfillment they began practicing physical and mental cruelty against her. Before filing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she was turned out from her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws with threatening that if she came back without dowry she will be turned out. On 1.1.2020 at 12:00 hours when the respondent no. 2- applicant was in her parental home, her husband and in-laws came to her place and stated that if she could not fulfill their demand of dowry, their marital relation would be dissolved and when she declined to fulfill their demand, they abused and gave beating to her by kicks and fits and therefore, she claimed for maintenance as the revisionist is having two acre agricultural land and he works as painter in big buildings on contract from which he earns Rs. 50,000/- per month.

5. Learned court below after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence recorded in maintenance case, gave finding that it is admitted fact that applicant and opposite party are wife and husband; applicant is residing at her parental home for six years and in that period she never came back to her matrimonial home; divorce proceedings are underway between the parties, therefore, it is natural that probability of their re-union is bleak and thus she has been left with no other option but to live separately from her husband, therefore it was held that applicant was residing separately from opposite party due to reasonable cause, learned court below has also found that according to version of opposite party, he works as a labourer and earns Rs. 200-250/- per day and therefore he has sufficient income to maintain the applicant. After recording these findings the court below awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of judgement. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed by the revisionist-opposite party.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the court below has acted in illegal manner and committed irregularity while passing the impugned order; there are manifest error of law apparent on the face of record in the judgement. On the basis of material on record it is apparent that respondent no. 2 has been residing separately from the revisionist without any reasonable cause and out of free will, therefore, the revisionist is not obliged to maintain her. He next submitted that revisionist is a person of meager economic sources and he works as a dai