ORDER

1. In this revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant - wife has cha1llenged the validity of the order dated 23.6.2022 passed in MJCR No.537 of 2016 whereby the application preferred by the applicant under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed in part and the non-applicant/husband has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the applicant wife from the date of filing of the application.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the applicant filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. It is not disputed that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemised on 10.12.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is also not disputed that the applicant-wife is a B.D.S. doctor. The applicant had lodged an FIR on 27.6.2016 bearing Crime No.284 of 2016 against the respondent for offences under sections 498 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter offence under section 325 of the IPC was also registered.

3. It was averred that at the time of marriage, the parents of the applicant had given dowry and other gifts as per their capacity. Earlier, the applicant was practising as Dentist but after marriage due to pressure of the respondent, she left her practice. The respondent used to harass and torture the applicant by beating her and alleging about her infertility. Due to harassment and torture by the respondent, she is living at her parental home and the respondent is not maintaining her.

4. The respondent by filing reply to the aforesaid application, denied the allegations levelled against him. It was stated that the applicant is a practising dentist and earning handsome amount. It was also contended that many a time, the parents of the applicant had obtained money from the respondent and did not repay the same. The applicant, herself left the house of the respondent without any rhyme or reason.

5. By the impugned order, the Court below has partly allowed the application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. holding that the non-applicant shall pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of filing of the application.

6. The applicant, in person, submitted that the Court below though found the facts narrated by the applicant to be correct yet only partly allowed the application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and thus, erroneously granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month only instead of Rs.50,000/-. She left the matrimonial home due to harassment by the respondent which is reflected from the FIR lodged by the applicant against the respondent. The respondent has property worth about Rupees Five Crores and he is earning Rs.5 Lac per month which is reflected from paragraph 8 of his crossexamination. It is also contended that no document has ever been produced by the respondent indicating her income by practising as a dentist. It is submitted that earlier the applicant was dependent on her father but her father died on 11.4.2021 and thus, she has no other source for her maintenance. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that maintenance amount may be enhanced.

7. Despite ample opportunity, none has appeared for the respondent.

8. I have heard the applicant in person and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the applicant is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. The dispute between the parties regarding maintenance has been adjudicated by the trial Court and the findings of the Court below have not been challenged. The applicant appeared in person and only claimed that the maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court may be enhanced as the non-applicant has so many sources of income and his earning is so high but the trial Court has fixed the monthly income of the non-applicant only at the Rs.70,000/-.

9. The statements of the applicant about the earn