G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 397, 401 of CrPC 1973 against the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, Morena in Case No. 75/2015 by which the application filed by the respondent under section 125 of CrPC 1973 has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application. Apart from that, the applicant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards the litigation expenses and an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards advocacy fee.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondent filed an application under section 125 of CrPC 1973 alleging that she was married to the applicant in the year 1989 and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. It was alleged that about 13 years back, the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the report in the police station was lodged as well as the panchayat was convened. In the panchayat, it was stated by the applicant and his family members that in case the family of the respondent gives an amount of Rs. 20,000/- then they would keep the respondent with them. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was also given. Punchanama was prepared. It was alleged that because the respondent could not conceive, therefore, the applicant without obtaining divorce from the respondent, kept a lady known as Kalpana and is residing with her for the last 12 years. It was alleged that a month prior to the filing of the application, the applicant and his family members again assaulted the respondent and a report was lodged and the police registered an offence under Section 498-A of IPC. When the applicant and his family members filed an application for grant of bail, then it was disclosed for the first time that the applicant has taken divorce from the respondent about 22 years back. On 24.03.2015, the respondent came to know that by playing fraud, the applicant has obtained divorce and, accordingly, necessary action has been taken for getting the said decree set-aside. The respondent has no means of livelihood whereas the applicant has 20 bigha of land and tractor and buffaloes. The applicant is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and, therefore, a prayer was made for grant of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance amount.

3. The applicant filed his reply to the application filed under section 125 of CrPC 1973. In reply, the applicant neither accepted nor denied the factum of marriage. He merely said that in this application, the respondent has alleged that she got married in the year 1989 whereas in the report on which offence under Section 498-A of IPC has been registered, she has stated that she was married in the year 1996. It was further alleged that why the respondent did not file any application under section 125 of CrPC 1973 for the last 13 years and so far as the payment of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is concerned, the said amount was deposited in the account of the respondent. It was further alleged that the applicant has already obtained divorce from the respondent in the year 1993. The applicant is a laborer and has the responsibility of maintaining his children, wife whereas the respondent is earning independently by doing stitching work. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the respondent is not entitled for maintenance amount.

4. The Trial Court also came to hold that in fact the respondent was residing with the applicant but it appears that by playing fraud, the applicant obtained the decree of divorce taking advantage of the illiteracy of the respondent. It was further held that the respondent is entitled to receive Rs. 4,000/- per month by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even according to the averments made in the application filed under section 12