1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State - respondent, Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Sambhal situated at Chandausi in Case No.198 of 2021 (Smt. Payal v. Gaurav Sharma alias Indramohan, under S.125 CrPC, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal, whereby the opposite party No.2 has been awarded Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of application on 27.04.2021 to date of judgment and Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of impugned judgment i.e.13.08.2024.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that marriage of the revisionist (Gaurav Sharma) was solemnized with opposite party No.2 (Smt. Payal) according to Hindu rites and rituals on 24.06.2019 and parents of the opposite party No.2 (Smt. Payal) had given sufficient gifts and dowry in the marriage, but her husband and in - laws were not satisfied with the dowry and thereafter they used to demand a swift car and Rs.2 lac cash when the opposite party No.2 expressed her inability to fulfil their demand, on 21.06.2020, her husband gave her beating, due to which, her child in the womb died and her husband did not provide her medical treatment. When her father and uncle went to meet her, they were also beaten by revisionist and her in - laws. In July, 2020, her in - laws left her to the border of her parental village with warning that never come back without fulfilling their demand of dowry. Thereafter, her father lodged a complaint at the Police Counselling Centre, in which, a date was fixed on 06.03.2021. There upon on 07.03.2021, her husband, mother - in - law, brother - in - law (dewar), sister - in - law (nanad) visited her house in the morning and pressurized her to enter into compromise and when she refused the same, they gave her beating and repeated their demanded dowry. When the crowd gathered there, they escaped from the house of the opposite party No.2 after giving threat of life. In this regard, she lodged an FIR, vide Case Crime No.38 of 2021, under S.498A, S.323, S.504, S.506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Her husband has neglected to maintain her since she was turned out from her matrimonial home and never took her back to his place, whereas opposite party No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist (Gaurav Sharma alias Indramohan) and he has responsibility to maintain her. She has no independent source of income and her husband works as a cashier in ICICI Bank situated at Sector - 18, Noida and earns around Rs.45,000/- per month. He also possess 10 bigha agricultural land from which, he gets Rs.20,000/- annual income. He also earns Rs.30,000/- as rent from house built in 200 square yards as well as Rs.15,000/- also earns from selling milk of cow and buffalo. Thus, he earns Rs.90,000/- per month from all sources. The opposite party No.2 is living life of a deserted wife and she claimed Rs.45,000/- per month as maintenance.

4. The trial Court had summoned the revisionist (Gaurav Sharma alias Indramohan), who appeared and filed his written statement, in which, he accepted the factum of marriage between the parties, but he denied the allegations of torture, physical assault and matrimonial cruelty levelled against him by the opposite party No.2. He also stated therein that he is still ready to take back the opposite party No.2. He had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the family Court, under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as Matrimonial Suit No.41 of 2020, in which, opposite party No.2 appeared and stated that she is still residing at her parental house. She is a skilled woman and she also helps her parents in agricultural work and animal husbandry. He is not employed anywhere and he has only 4