ORDER

1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act 1984 read with section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 12.7.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in MJCR No.49/2017 whereby learned Principal Judge allowed the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/applicant and directed the petitioner/nonapplicant to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance.

2. Regarding this revision petition, it is undisputed that the marriage between the petitioner/non-applicant and respondent/applicant was solemnized on 27.11.2015.

3. Succinctly, the case of the applicant is that just after marriage the petitioner and his family members started to demand dowry from the applicant. The petitioner has also threatened her to expel her from the house, if she fails to fulfill their demand of dowry. Further it is alleged that suddenly on one day, petitioner/non-applicant has forced the respondent/applicant to sit in a train for Ratlam. Even after this incident, the respondent, in order to save her home, went to her matrimonial house four times, i.e. on 28.3.2016, 30.4.2016, 9.8.2016 and 9.9.2016, however, she was humiliated and thrown out from her matrimonial house. In this way, she has been renounced and maltreated by her husband/petitioner. She further articulated that her husband is employed as Senior Sales Executive in Vijay Sales, Mumbai, Maharashtra and used to get salary of Rs.70,000/- per month. Hence she prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.4,500/- as monthly rent for her house.

4. In reply, the petitioner/non-applicant, while denying the contentions of the application submitted that the respondent has made false allegations against the petitioner and his family members. It was alleged that she was voluntarily residing with her parents. The petitioner/non-applicant is working only as a clerk in a private company, while the respondent/applicant herself is earning Rs.10,000/- by way of stitching clothes and Rs.5000/- from tuition, hence her application deserves to be dismissed.

5. In respect of the aforesaid averments, learned Principal Judge, Family Court has farmed two points for determination:

i. Whether the respondent is entitled for maintenance from the petitioner?

ii. What would be the approximate amount of

maintenance?

6. In this case, the respondent/applicant Smt. Nikhil Sharma deposed in her favour and petitioner/non-applicant Shaleen Nagar has deposed in his favour. After appreciating the evidence of both the parties, learned Principal Judge has awarded Rs.12,000/- as monthly maintenance to respondent.

7. In the course of arguments and revision petition, the impugned order has been challenged on behalf of the petitioner on various grounds. It is highly remonstrated that learned Court below itself admitted that the monthly income of the petitioner is only Rs.24,000/- and in spite of that an amount of Rs.12,000/- has been awarded as monthly maintenance. It is also contended that learned Family Court did not considered the fact that petitioner/non-applicant has the liability of his mother too and the respondent/applicant is earning her income. Learned Court below has also noticed the fact that the respondent/applicant is voluntarily not residing with the petitioner/nonapplicant. It is also expostulated that the respondent/applicant has failed to prove her pleadings, even then the Court below has committed error in its findings.

8. During the course of arguments Shri Yadav, mainly submitted on the point of quantum of maintenance and exposited that learned trial Court has wrongly awarded maintenance on the higher side, therefore, maintenance amount be modified/reduced from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.6,000/-.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

10. So far as the finding as to awarding maintenance is concerned, looking to the evidence available on record, it manifestly emerges that the petiti