ORDER

1. In this Criminal revision filed under section 397 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order passed on 19.7.2013 by First Additional Principal Judge Bhopal in M.J.C. No.166/2011, whereby the maintenance application of petitioner No.1 was rejected and maintenance of Rs.1,000/- was allowed in favour of petitioner No.2, which is on the lower side.

2. Facts pleaded by the petitioners in application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed before the concerned family Court are that petitioner No.1 is a legally wedded wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of respondent. Three or four months after the marriage that was solemnized on 11.7.2008, the respondent started harassing the petitioner No.1 for demand of Rs.1 Lakh in dowry and also caused aspersion on her character. She was also harassed by the mother and sister of the respondent for the similar demand. After the birth of petitioner No.2 on 15.5.2009, respondent took both the petitioners to the parental house of petitioner no.1 and told her not to come back unless the demand of Rs.1 Lakh was fulfilled. Since then both the petitioners are being neglected by the respondent, who has not taken care of any of their needs. Respondent is a teacher in District Raipur (C.G.) and runs an internet cafe. His total income from all the sources is Rs.30,000/- per month. On this basis, it was prayed to allow maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.3000/- to respondent No.2.

3. The respondent denied the above averments and specifically pleaded that petitioner no.1 was never harassed by the respondent or his family members. They never demanded any dowry. She, after giving birth to her daughter willingly came to her parents house and refused to come back despite repeated insistence on the part of respondent. Petitioner No.1 is a highly educated woman working in Bhopal. Respondent earns merely Rs.7814/- per month through his job and has no other source of income. Based on these facts, prayer was made to reject the application.

4. Evidence of both the parties was recorded by the learned Judge of Family Court and on appreciation of evidence he reached to the finding that petitioner No.1 has willingly deserted the company of respondent without any sufficient cause and further she is a working woman. Hence, her application for maintenance was rejected and looking to the needs of petitioner No.2 as well as the income of respondent, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was awarded as maintenance to petitioner No.2.

5. In this revision petition the grounds raised by the petitioners are that it is the respondent, who has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners; there has been no withdrawal on the part of petitioner from the company of respondent. Respondent is skipping from his liability to maintain them. It has been wrongly held by the learned Judge of Family Court that petitioner No.1 is working as a computer operator in Bhopal. There is no evidence to support this fact. On this basis, the prayer is made to allow the petition.

6. Respondent has opposed the petitioner by asserting that there is no illegality or perversity in the order, hence it needs no interference.

7. Arguments of both the parties have been heard and record has been perused.

8. Petitioner no.1 and her brother Uttam Kumar are examined as witnesses before the learned family court. The facts stated in the petition about the harassment caused to petitioner no.1 and the factum of desertion by the respondent have been corroborated by the testimony of these witnesses. The reason for desertion by the respondent has been claimed to be demand of dowry but the entire evidence recorded on behalf of petitioners does not suggest that any complaint or FIR was ever made by petitioner No.1 regarding this harassment and demand of dowry. This may also be mentioned that petitioner no.1 is a well-educated and qualified lady who has admittedly worked as computer operator in BHEL. Non-reporting the matter of aggressive advances and do